Archive Page 3


Stuart Syvret repost – judge-made law in jersey

The Covert Coup by the Crown

Against the Island’s Legislature.

Here are a few questions which thinking people in Jersey will want to consider:

How many of the island’s judges did you vote for?
Did you elect the Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs?
Did you like their criteria for appointing other judges – their friends – as Commissioners?
Was it their policy of appointing their best friends as magistrates, to then preside over cases they were directly interested and conflicted in, which appealed to you?
Were you confident that that whole assemblage of patriarchs, oligarchs, potentates and vassals would do a far better job of making laws for Jersey than the democratically elected members of the island’s parliament could ever do?
Perhaps you felt that the island’s legislature – and the process of approval by Her Majesty-in-Council – would often get it wrong when introducing laws – so a coterie of local lawyers was needed to reverse those legislative “mistakes”?
You didn’t vote for any of these people – and don’t even have the ability to – and never approved any such transfer of what should be democratically accountable power from your politicians, to un-elected, self-selecting, self-protecting lawyers?
Well then you’re going to have to become familiar with the concept of ‘judge-made law’ – and in the context of Jersey how judge-made laws are not confined to a measured development from democratically accountable legislation, but instead can be a diametric opposition to it.
In the brief video below I spend a few minutes addressing the question of what is known as “judge-made law”, and the failure of the UK authorities to meet their own policy and their self-declared legal obligations in respect of the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

In the next posting, we’ll take a closer look at judge-made law, in the Crown Dependency of Jersey in particular. How many readers, I wonder, are familiar with the Latin legal maxim stare decisis?

It may seem dull, I know – but it’s by such arcanery that lawyers can usurp democracy and have an effect on your lives. And no matter how bad the average politician is – remember – lawyers are always worse: infinitely expensive – usually incompetent – devoid of ethics or any sense of moral hazard – and democratically unaccountable.
As John Keats said:
“I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.”
Stuart Syvret

Stuart Syvret repost – jersey’s prosocution system

Its Role in the Island’s 2011 Elections.

The facts you won’t learn

From the establishment media.

As I’ve said at several Hustings meetings, one of the great challenges facing this community is the existing power-structure. We don’t really understand why most of our politicians are largely powerless most of the time – and why our government just doesn’t do what we want it to.


And if, in truth, your politicians are largely powerless – then you are powerless.


If you want to understand where real power lies in Jersey – look to the Attorney General and judiciary – and look to the local mainstream media. Those two entities – the legal establishment and news outlets – wield more influence and control than you do via your elected representatives.


The press-release – published below – illustrates the power of both groups.


What you are about to read explains the true, politicised conduct of Jersey’s Attorney General and judges. The document also illustrates just how powerful the local media are. It was issued to BBC Jersey – but yet none of the important issues it describes have been reported.


Jersey’s judicial establishment – and Jersey’s establishment media – both working together, to do all they can to influence people to vote for oligarchs like Philip Bailhache.


Taking  a few minutes to read,  and reflect upon, the facts explained below will give you more insight into real power in Jersey, than you will ever gain from all of the island’s mainstream media.


Press Release:


(Issued exclusively to the BBC – Monday, 10th October, 2011.)














Jersey’s authorities knowingly withheld relevant evidence from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret, and during the subsequent appeal.


Jersey’s authorities also concealed the existence of a key witness from the defence side during the prosecution against Stuart Syvret and during the subsequent appeal.


The concealing of evidence and of witnesses is unlawful.


These concealments cause all of the legal proceedings against Stuart Syvret to be ultra vires and miscarriages of justice.


Mr. Syvret came to know of these concealments only in recent weeks – sometime after the appeal was rejected.


He has made an urgent application to the Jersey judicial authorities for a court hearing at which he can table the concealed evidence, given the fact the evidence shows the convictions against him to be flawed and unsafe.


The existence of the new evidence – and the very fact it was concealed – also shows the nature of the proceedings against him to be an ‘abuse-of-process’ and to thus be ultra vires.


But as a result of the dangerously flawed proceedings against him, Mr. Syvret stands convicted – and under severe and damaging prejudice as a consequence of a prosecution in which key evidence was deliberately concealed from the defence side.


Such is the power and relevance of the concealed evidence and the witness testimony, Mr. Syvret has applied – as would be the right of any person – for an urgent court hearing at which the new evidence would be tabled in support of an application to quash and stay the prosecution and conviction against him.


Mr. Syvret wrote to Jersey’s judicial authorities on the 2nd September applying for a court date to make an application to seek some form of immediate relief from the existing judgments which are no longer safe.


Immediate relief was required – as Mr. Syvret is under immediate and seriously prejudicial consequences in respect of the recent criminal proceedings against him – and the verdicts – and sentences arising – which are now clearly no longer safe.


Quite extraordinarily, Jersey’s court authorities have refused to give Mr. Syvret access to justice – until after the conclusion of Jersey’s general election, in which he is a candidate.


Even more extraordinarily – that decision to refuse Mr Syvret access to justice until after the election – was made by Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – brother of former Bailiff Philip Bailhache – who is an opponent of Mr Syvret in the same election.


Justice delayed – is justice denied.


Any person who is suffering the prejudice and harm of an evidencedely unsafe court verdict has a right to access a court to seek relief from that prejudice. Even if such relief were to be temporary, pending a full hearing.


All people have a right to access justice – and a right to a fair trial – as guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.


It is established law that the right to access justice must be an “effective” right – in order to satisfy the provisions of Article 6 of the ECHR.


For Mr. Syvret’s right to access justice to be “effective”, he requires access to a court before the Jersey elections. Refusing him such access guarantees that the sever prejudice and damage he has suffered as a result of the unlawful concealment of evidence cannot be partially repaired by him gaining some vindication prior to the election.


Therefore, the only means by which Mr. Syvret has been able to gain a court-hearing – by which he may seek justice – has been to refuse to comply with the ultra vires sentences imposed upon him. Consequently, he has been told to appear before the magistrates’ court this Wednesday 12th October, at 10.00 am.


Mr Syvret has notified the court of his attendance – and informed them of the case he will make.


However – given the bias and ultra vires nature of the past judicial conduct against Mr. Syvret, it seems probable that attempts will be made – again – to prevent him from running his defence case effectively.


The decision to deny Mr Syvret his right to access court is already rendered ultra vires by the conflicts of interests of Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache, given his brother, Philip Bailhache’s position as an election opponent of Mr. Syvret. However – the clear unlawfulness of the decision of William Bailhache to provide a timely court hearing for Mr. Syvret is rendered even more illegitimate given William Bailhache’s own, direct, personal conflicted position in the case brought against Mr Syvret.


William Bailhache was the Attorney General – the sole prosecuting authority in Jersey – who ordered and directed the investigation, covert police surveillance, massed police raid, arrest, unlawful search without a search-warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret in the first place.


The startling illegitimacy and unlawfulness of any involvement of William Bailhache at all – in any decisions relevant to either the charging or prosecution of Mr Syvret – or, more latterly, in Mr Bailhache’s capacity as Deputy Bailiff, decisions in respect of Mr Syvret’s access to timely justice – becomes even more clear when it is understood that William Bailhache was, in fact, the initial “complainant” – and alleged “victim” – of supposed breaches of the Data Protection Law that he contended had been committed against him by Mr. Syvret – and for which Mr. Bailhache ordered the massed police-raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution against Mr. Syvret.


William Bailhache’s conflicted involvement as a supposed complainant and “victim” is proven by three items of documentary evidence.


Those are: –


·        1: A number of recorded Police decisions.


·        2: The statement by Graham Power QPM to the Wiltshire police.


·        3: The statement by Lenny Harper to the Wiltshire police.


The Police “Major Crime Policy File” decisions (only a few of which have been disclosed to Mr. Syvret) demonstrate a number of things:


·        That the Police Force were conducting a major, high-level investigation into Mr. Syvret’s work as a politician; work he was undertaking on behalf of his constituents;


·        That the “investigation”, surveillance, raid, arrest, search without a warrant, charging and prosecution was undertaken on the orders of William Bailhache’s office.


·        The decision included – specifically – an unlawful decision to illegally mount a raid and arrest against Mr. Syvret, so as to provide a device to “get around” the requirement of a search warrant.


·        That the Attorney General (William Bailhache) was the supposed “victim” of the supposed “crime” of Mr. Syvret.


The statement to the Wiltshire Police by Graham Power contains many, many sections which are of direct and dramatic relevance to all of the criminal proceedings conducted against Mr. Syvret – and, in particular, of huge relevance to the central defence case – namely that the actions taken against Mr. Syvret were an unlawful ‘abuse-of-process’ and a malicious prosecution.


Throughout the entire proceedings against him, Mr Syvret has sought disclosure of Mr. Power’s statement, as Mr. Syvret very strongly suspected it would contain important and highly relevant evidence.


However, the prosecution and the courts refused to disclose the evidence to Mr. Syvret.


The prosecution – acting under the instruction of William Bailhache, and, more latterly Tim Le Cocq (Bailhache’s successor as Attorney General) – repeatedly asserted that there was no requirement to disclose this evidence as it was of no relevance or assistance to the defence case.


Mr. Syvret only obtained a copy of Mr Power’s statement – from a source – in recent weeks.


As is very clear from reading Mr. Power’s statement, it is of immense relevance to the defence case – powerfully showing as it does, the deeply politicised nature of the prosecution function in Jersey –  the many and various political involvements and entanglements of the Attorney General – the “political” interest William Bailhache had in suppressing the effective investigation and exposure of the child abuse investigations – the motivations William Bailhache and his political allies had in obstructing, thwarting, damaging and discrediting Mr. Syvret in his work as a then Senator attempting to politically represent certain of his then constituents who are child abuse victims – corrupt inducements of career advancements being offered to certain senior police officers by politicians such as former Deputy Andrew Lewis – and the “investigation” into how Mr Syvret was obtaining information he needed to represent his constituents in respect of the unlawful failings of the Office of Attorney General to prosecute their abusers. That investigation was named “Operation Adrian”.


Not only did Attorney Generals William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq unlawfully fail to disclose this evidence to Mr Syvret – their agent – prosecuting lawyer Stephen Baker repeatedly misled the court concerning the document. He repeatedly claimed it was “of no relevance” – but then, after two years of legal proceedings – inadvertently admitted that he had not, in fact, actually read the document.


However, following this incident – in the very final stages of the appeal, having been forced to actually read the evidence, Advocate Baker still falsely asserted the document contained nothing of any assistance to the defence arguments.


As can now be seen by any person reading the document, that claim was completely untrue.


Moreover – Stephen Baker himself is revealed as directly conflicted – being referred to in several parts of Mr. Power’s statement in respect of the obstructions by William Bailhache’s office to the Police wish to have certain child abusers charged and prosecuted.


The statement by Lenny Harper to Wiltshire police – in ways similar to the statement by Graham Power – powerfully evidences many examples of deeply politicised activity by Jersey’s prosecution system and Attorney General William Bailhache in particular.


For example – Mr. Harper’s statement refers to a lawyer with great experience of child protection matters – Sarah O’Donnell – offering her services to William Bailhache at an early stage – and William Bailhache replying to her “I wouldn’t worry because there are not going to be any prosecutions any way.”


Mr Harper’s statement also evidences the fact the Attorney General William Bailhache had initiated a major criminal investigation against the political work the then Senator Stuart Syvret was undertaking on behalf of specific, directly disadvantage constituents who were survivors of abuse.


A key part of that work by Mr Syvret were his efforts to expose and challenge the improper manner in which at least four highly evidenced child abusers had been let off. Those abusers being Jane and Alan Maguire and Mr. and Mrs Bonner.


In the latter case, the States of Jersey Police Force had been forced to release them without charge, following interference from William Bailhache.


In the former case – that of the Maguires – Mr Syvret had been seeking their extradition from France, they having retired there following the improper abandonment of a prosecution against them in 1998. Their victims were utterly failed and betrayed by the Jersey authorities on that occasion.


Further – the legal representation the victims had at the time in 1998 also failed them, disastrously. That law firm was Bailhache LaBesse and the Senior Partner at that time was William Bailhache.


Under well-established standards of administrative law – a public authority that carries out a statutory function – in this case the prosecuting authority – must not be conflicted in its decision-making.


That is simply the law.


In the case of all and every prosecution decision made concerning Mr Syvret – the function has been wholly and profoundly contaminated with a dramatic and evidenced range of conflicts of interest.


Therefore all of those decisions by the prosecution system are unlawful – ultra vires – and have no legal legitimacy.


That is not because Mr Syvret claims, nor has he ever done, that he be immune from prosecution; rather – the prosecution system of Jersey has become so politicised, dysfunctional and contaminated by personal conflicts of interest – that it has taken itself into territory where it simply cannot function in a lawful manner.


Nor is its operation and conduct – given these circumstances – capable of being compliant with the ECHR.


There is a further matter.


In addition to the prosecution system of Jersey – the island’s judicial apparatus is similarly hopelessly contaminated with political and personal considerations.


The magistrate – Bridget Shaw – who heard the original prosecution against Stuart Syvret – is personally well known to several of the prosecution witnesses.


She is also friends with other parties who clearly have a powerful negative “interest” in matters concerning Mr. Syvret.


She has also refused to disclose the identity of the individual or individuals from who she has taken “advice” and “guidance” during the prosecution.


She also ruled Mr Syvret’s entire defence case “inadmissible” – after three months defence work – once it was realised the prosecution had no answer at all to that defence case and their charges had collapsed.


In the case of the appeal – matters remained dysfunctional and unlawful and non-ECHR compliant, when the case went before Jersey’s Royal Court.


The Judge, Sir Christopher Pitchers, was appointed to hear the case by ‘Bailiff’, Michael Birt – the former Attorney General who Mr. Syvret had exposed and criticised in respect of failing to properly investigate the case of a rogue nurse seriously suspected of being a clinical serial-killer.  The public interest disclosure of the case being the supposed “offence” that Mr. Syvret was eventually charged with.


Further – Commissioner Pitchers – only belatedly – eventually admitted in the case that he had, in fact, had dinner with Michael Birt – and William Bailhache – in their present posts of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.


That is nothing less than extraordinary.


Plainly – no person can be viewed as an objective and impartial judge – if they have wined and dined with THE two, key – directly – and centrally involved antagonistic parties in respect of the accused.


This conflict of interest is seriously compounded by the repeated refusal of Commissioner Pitchers to disclose this social knowledge of key, involved parties at a far earlier stage.


Mr. Syvret shall be making a formal complaint to the United Kingdom Lord Chief Justice concerning this conduct of Commissioner Pitchers.


It is when viewing the extraordinary conduct of Jersey’s prosecution system – and Jersey’s judiciary – in light of the above factors – that some insight is finally gained into the extraordinary judgments against Mr. Syvret – which have seen a legal precedent established against independent internet-based journalism that has no corollary or analogue anywhere else – at all – in all of the established democratic Western countries.


Moreover – it is a precedent that purports to override statute law – and replaces it with judge-made law.


The British Channel Island of Jersey has descended into a condition of overt lawlessness and corruption.


The blame, responsibility for – and the remedy to – this crisis all lays with the Office of UK Justice Secretary.


That Office is going to be challenged concerning its failure to ensure good governance, the proper rule of law and good administration of justice in Jersey – in court in London.

Stuart Syvret repost – So be it

William Bailhache to Graham Power
In November 2008  – after having failed to coerce Chief Constable Power 

Into dropping a police investigation into planning corruption;

An investigation William Bailhache, and his brother, then Bailiff Philip Bailhache, had tried to obstruct by coercing a States member and illegally handling and leaking stolen e-mails. 

Days after William Bailhache wrote “so be it” to him –

Graham Power was unlawfully suspended.  

Published here in full, is a new affidavit by the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.
Mr. Power wrote this affidavit at my request for use in my appeal against the corrupt, malicious prosecution conducted against me.
This document is the end of the career of William Bailhache – and the beginning of the end of the Jersey oligarchy.
William Bailhache was, until 2010, the Attorney General – the sole prosecutory authority in Jersey. He is now the Deputy Bailiff – the deputy head of Jersey’s judiciary, and the unelected deputy speaker of the island’s parliament. He is also a criminal.
William Bailhache has been profoundly and nakedly corrupt – yet so crazed with hubris, he has gone about abusing his public Offices with remarkably little subtlety or caution.
For here you have a closely involved witness – of no-less calibre than a decorated, nationally respected Chief of Police – producing a sworn statement – in which he describes William Bailhache, and his brother Philip Bailhache, being involved in attempts to prevent the proper investigation of  – “allegations of corruption at the heart of government.”
And that is not all.
For what Mr. Power is also describing are the immediate events leading up to his unlawful suspension.
And make no mistake – it will be very apparent from reading Graham Power’s affidavit – that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
These matters are so stark, they’re not even complicated. The various criminal offences of William Bailhache fall in to several categories, but most obviously, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and of misconduct in a public office.
Within his affidavit, Graham Power quotes from his second statement to Wiltshire police. Just reading this brief quote alone will convey the gravity of the situation:
“In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.   Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008.   It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8th November 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008.”
That part – and the related parts of Mr. Power’s affidavit are apocalyptic enough – without even considering their obvious implications – and, indeed, those of the rest of the affidavit – for the motivations and “lawfulness” of the decisions of William Bailhache.
Decisions to have me raided and arrested – to have Deputy Labey’s house searched by an army of police officers – under the direction of Dave Minty – without a search-warrant – to have her files in respect of the planning corruption interfered with – to have my files and laptop with parliamentary privileged communications between me and hundreds of my constituents stolen – and to then subject me to a malicious prosecution.

In the previous posting, I drew readers’ attention to the Watergate scandal – and in doing so, I gave notice of how remarkably similar that criminality was, to what will come to be known as Jerseygate.  Similar – save for the fact that Jerseygate is far worse.

An entrenched political oligarchy – and the Attorney General – involved in coercion, corruption, unlawful suspension of the Chief of Police, illegal politically motivated police raids, in which the police under Warcup were used as  “official” burglars, assault,  the theft of confidential data, the criminal concealment of many different crimes – including corruption – and many cases of child abuse – the direct use of corrupt elements in the police to sabotage opposition politicians and to illegally interfere in the democratic rights of their constituents – and using a suborned and contaminated judicial apparatus as a tool of political “enforcement”.
All lawyers – including judges – speak in a strange language – one evolved over the centuries, in ways calculated to confuse and disempower ordinary people.
They like to imagine that, with their arcane phrases – the ceremonial surroundings – their fancy-dress – the obscurantist word-play – the air of deference – the power – that we won’t see the plain truth beneath the theatrics.
Although they will want to maintain the charade – the entire prosecution against me has reached its destination.
It has collapsed.
It was always an unlawful enterprise – undertaken by a structurally conflicted public authority – and a directly, personally conflicted individual in William Bailhache.
An individual corruptly and criminally motivated.
It’s hardly surprising, really – that when I attempted to subpoena William Bailhache, back in 2009, in order to question him a during my abuse-of-process application in the Jersey magistrates’ court – that he “heard” of my summons – and e-mailed the issuing authority (a friend of his) and told him not to.

And nor is it surprising that when I sought to challenge the failure to issue the summons, the prosecuting lawyer (a friend of Bailhache’s) argued that Bailhache’s involvement was “not relevant” to my abuse-of-process argument.

And equally unsurprising that the magistrate (a friend of Bailhache’s) agreed with the lawyer.
But in light of the testimony of the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, it is now established that the actions and decisions and involvements of William Bailhache were – indubitably – of central and key relevance to the case.
Even now, given their arrogance, I’m not quite sure these oligarchs realise just how much trouble they are in.
Next week – I am going to file a very simple – urgent – court application.
That application will be for the immediate quashing of the criminal actions against me.
Quashing on the plain and obvious ground that it has all been unlawful.
Starkly unlawful – in several ways.
If which ever judge hears this application (invariably, another friend of William Bailhache’s) fails to agree my application – it will merely be another nail awaiting that rapidly closing coffin-lid of Jersey’s existing judicial apparatus.
But either way – I’m going to have to consider whether I should ever set foot – voluntarily – again, into any Jersey court to answer these criminal charges against me?
The entire prosecution against me is – of itself – a criminal enterprise.
It may well be my public duty to call this farrago for what it is – treat it with the contempt it deserves – rather than to continue to confer “credibility” upon this corrupt and shabby apparatus.
A relevant speculation is whether William Bailhache will now resign – or whether he clings on – and takes the Jersey Law Officers Department and the island’s judiciary down with him in a spectacular Gotterdammerung.
The latter I suspect. In truth – it’s too late now – for even the immediate resignation of William Bailhache to save the rest of the suborned and corrupted Jersey prosecution and judicial apparatus from what is now, plainly, the inescapable.
The thing that long-protected Jersey’s criminals – because they themselves had colonised it – is itself now exposed as a criminal enterprise.
People are often poor at foreseeing the long-term consequences of their actions. Especially so when they are usually confidently in control of events – and they themselves wield power, or they are close and allied to those who do. But beware hubris; events happen. Around the world we see even the most entrenched of regimes falling. Many powerful and influential people in Jersey’s hitherto protected criminal class – the island’s grifter elite – and their vassals and those who have obeyed their orders and done their bidding – will now be sensing – as though a long black cloud came out of this summer sky – the beginning of their decline and fall – and the fear.

Affidavit of Graham Power QPM.   

Former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police.

1.      My name is Graham Power.   I am a retired Police Officer and I currently live in North Yorkshire.   Earlier this year I was contacted by Mr Stuart Syvret.   I know Mr Syvret as a former Senator in the States of Jersey.   Mr Syvret informed me he was involved in a legal action which arose from a prosecution against him in respect of alleged data protection issues.   The legal proceedings in which he is now engaged apparently involve a hearing before a Court in which Mr Syvret is seeking to establish that the police action and prosecution was legally flawed and politically motivated.   Although I am aware of the current case I have not been following it closely and am not familiar with its detail.   Mr Syvret has told me the Court has agreed that he may submit a statement from me relating to the case.   On 27th April 2011 I received a document from Mr Syvret which set out the points which he was asking me to refer to in a statement.   I have therefore prepared the following for the benefit of the Court.   The request from Mr Syvret is wide-ranging and I have therefore sought to refer only to matters which appear to me to be relevant to the proceedings and helpful to the Court.  For the avoidance of any doubt this statement has been provided in order that it can be used to assist proceedings currently taking place before a Jersey Court and for no other purpose.
2.      The Court may see value in knowing something of my own policing background.   I therefore offer the following brief summary. I joined the Police Service in Middlesbrough in 1966 and during the early 1980s was a Superintendent in Cleveland Police.   I joined North Yorkshire Police on promotion to Chief Superintendent.   In 1990 I transferred to the Scottish Police Service where I held a number of posts based in Edinburgh.   Initially I was Assistant Chief Constable in Lothian and Borders Police and I later became Deputy Chief Constable of that Force.   In the late 1990s I was appointed Assistant to HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland and it was while in that post that I applied for and was appointed as Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police in 2000.
3.      I have been selected for a number of high-level courses at the Police Staff College, Bramshill.   These include the “Special Course” and the “Senior Command Course.”  Both courses were intended to select and develop the future leaders of the Police Service.   In the early 1970s I was awarded a University Scholarship by the Police Staff College subject to me gaining admission to a suitable University Course.   I successfully applied for a place at Queen’s College Oxford where I read Politics, Philosophy and Economics.   During my time at University my senior tutor (and subsequently Provost of the College) was the late Geoffrey Marshall who was the author of the book “Police and Government” and an authority on the relationship between senior police leadership and the political authorities.
4.      In my service as a senior officer I have worked in partnership with a range of political groups and interests.   For example, in Cleveland there were some sharp divisions between traditional “Old Labour” representatives and those who were seen as more left wing and radical.   In North Yorkshire there was strong political representation of traditional and landed interests.   In Scotland, Police Authorities, and both local and national government were sometimes strongly divided between Nationalist, Devolutionist and Unionist interests.   There were also sometimes sharp divisions along sectarian lines.
5.      I consider myself to be experienced in working in challenging political environments and aware of the need to strike a balance between proper political accountability of the police service and the need to be independent, both in terms of reality and perception, in the delivery of operational policing.   In 1994 I was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for distinguished service.
6.      On 12th November 2008 I was suspended from duty by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Andrew Lewis, who claimed he was in possession of evidence which indicated that I was guilty of serious management failure in respect of the Jersey Historic Abuse Enquiry.   He stated that he had come to this conclusion on the basis of a report which he had received the previous day.   In spite of this claim no disciplinary charges were ever brought and no hearing was ever called.   I retired from the Police Service in July 2010 having completed over 44 years service.   In all of that time I have never been charged with any disciplinary offence.
7.      I regard my suspension in November 2008 as a planned and calculated act of intimidation and a gross abuse of Ministerial Power.   I believe that this view is well supported by the available evidence.   This evidence includes the critical comments made by the Royal Court and the findings of an enquiry by Brian Napier QC.
8.      Mr Syvret has asked me to comment on the arrangements by which the Chief Officer of Police is accountable to the relevant political authorities in Jersey, and how this compares with other jurisdictions with which I am familiar.   I have written on these issues in some detail in my two Affidavits and Skeleton Argument as part of my application for a Judicial Review of my suspension.   I understand that all of these documents are available to the Court should they be seen as relevant.   In those documents I argue that in Jersey there is an absence of the checks and balances which are present in comparable jurisdictions, where they are generally seen as essential in preserving the independence of operational policing.   I set out a view that in Jersey the absence of these checks and balances results in a situation in which the Chief Officer of Police is vulnerable to political influence both in reality and perception.   I have not changed my views in relation to these issues.
9.      I believe it is possible that the Court may have an interest in any working relationship which may be said to exist between myself and Mr Syvret.   It may therefore be helpful to draw the attention of the Court to the evidence contained in the first of two statements I made to Wiltshire Police.    The statement was prepared in connection with an investigation conducted in accordance with a Disciplinary Code created under the Police Force (Jersey) Law of 1974.   The investigation was named “Haven 1.”   My statement was completed on 30th July 2009.   The Minister for Home Affairs has recently stated that he intends to publish parts of the statement at a future date.   Some parts of that statement touch upon my contact with the then Senator Syvret and the Court may wish to have the statement in its entirety should it be seen as relevant.   I understand that the Court should be able to gain access to the full statement should that be appropriate.  However, it may be that an extract will suffice.   In paragraphs 125 and 126 of my statement I make reference to my contact with the then Senator.   The relevant paragraphs, which are in a section dealing with the significance of the Abuse Enquiry to the Island, are reproduced below:
125.                      The issue has also been part of a major political divide.   Prominent and active in this debate has been Senator Stuart Syvret.   He also features in some of the witness statements.   He is a controversial local politician, who is noted for his anti-establishment views.   He has a significant number of supporters in politics and the wider community.   From some of the evidence offered by witnesses who have provided statements during the course of this enquiry, the Investigating Officer may have felt that he was being encouraged to take a view that the Senator was some form of marginalised “crank” figure, whose opinions should be taken lightly.   That would not, in my view, be an accurate assessment.  Senator Stuart Syvret is the island’s current longest serving politician.   Although he has not faced an election in recent years, he sometimes claims, on the basis of historical results, that he is also the islands most popular politician.   That might be arguable, but it could also be true.   As a professional police officer I recognise that I should try to avoid expressing a view on a political figure.   However, given that he is a common thread which runs through much of the background to this enquiry, I find that hard to avoid.   In any event it might be appropriate be deal with this now and then move on to other things.   While I cannot support many of the things which Senator Syvret says and does, I nevertheless see value in his contribution to the political process.    He brings a spirit of challenge which is often lacking in local political debate.   He is a determined, committed and interesting person, and a politician who most ordinary people, or individuals who are disadvantaged, would trust.   In a community which is sharply divided into “us” and “them” he is apparently seen my many people as one of “us.”  
126.                      In the interests of transparency I disclose that I have been on friendly terms with Senator Syvret and his partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey.  She is also a hard-working and dedicated politician.    Some time before “Rectangle” became a big issue Carolyn Labey invited my wife and I to a small social event held at the farmhouse where they both lived.   Stuart Syvret was present.   Nothing of a sensitive nature was discussed.   Since I have been suspended both Stuart and Carolyn have initiated contact.   I have told them that it would be best if this contact ceased for the time being.   Shortly after my suspension I met with Senator Syvret in my capacity as his constituent.  The meeting took place in St Helier Parish Hall and the Connétable of St Helier was present as a witness.   We discussed issues relating to the suspension and my representations to have it overturned.   Neither at this meeting, nor at any other time have I discussed operationally sensitive matters with Stuart Syvret.   There have been no “leaks” and no secretive contacts.   My dealings with him have been either entirely professional, or have constituted a legitimate exercise of my common-law right to communicate with my elected representative.
10.  The statement which I made in 2010 was true then and is true now.   Nothing new of significance relating to my dealings with the now Mr Syvret has occurred since that time.
11.  I have been asked by Mr Syvret to make comment on my perceptions, as a former Chief Officer of the Force, of what he describes as a Police “raid” on the home he shared at that time with Deputy Labey.   This incident occurred after I had been suspended and I have no information about the event other than what I heard or read in the media at that time or have been told by others.   It is difficult for me to offer comment when I have only limited information.   I have formed some views on the basis of the limited information which I have available to me, but I accept that if I had more information my views may be different.   Without access to all of the facts I cannot be sure.   All that said, I believe that on the basis of my experience in policing matters I am nevertheless able to offer some general views on the principles involved.
12.  Mr Syvret has asked me to comment on how I would have managed the arrest of a person for data protection offences.   That is a difficult question.   I have no knowledge or experience whatsoever of the police arresting any person for breaches of the data protection law.   I know of no case where this has happened either in Jersey or in any other location in which I have served as a Police Officer.  That does not mean to say that it has never happened.   It is just that if it has happened then it is not within my experience.   In all of my experience data-protection issues have been dealt with by investigation and a written report to the relevant prosecution authorities.   If the matter is to progress further then a summons, or equivalent process, would be the usual way forward.   I am sure that there will sometimes be exceptional circumstances which would justify an arrest.  Otherwise the power to do so would not exist.   I do not however have any knowledge or experience of any such cases.   I do not think that I can assist further on that specific question.
13.  Mr Syvret tells me that some of the conduct in contention is believed by him to have arisen because the Police gave his previous address in an application for a warrant.   If that is true then I find it surprising.   It was common knowledge that Senator Syvret lived at the address of Deputy Labey.   No secret was made of the fact.   I attended a social event at that address.   I recall at least one member of the Senior Management Team of the Force describing another social event at that address in the context of some heated argument involving the Senator.   Whatever that argument was about it is not the point for the purposes of this issue.   The point is that “everyone” including senior members of the Force knew where the Senator lived, or if they did not know they would have little difficulty in finding out.
14.  I do not know how operations of this nature would have been discussed when I was not in charge of the Force.   It may however be useful for the Court to know how they would have been managed during my time as Chief Officer.   As head of the Force I followed a practice, common in most forces, of meeting with key staff briefly at 9am each weekday.   At that meeting the head of Operations would speak about any matters of significance which had occurred in the previous 24 hours, and anything of significance which was planned for the near future.   By that means I would have an opportunity to question, challenge or advise as may be appropriate.  I would also be in a position to think about how I would deal with any political or media “fallout” from a planned operation.   I do not know whether the planned arrest of Senator Syvret was discussed in this way.   I can however say for sure that had I been in post such a discussion would have occurred.
15.  I have been asked to give an indication of the position I might have taken had I been Chief Officer and been told of the intention to arrest the Senator.   In the absence of all of the information I cannot be sure of everything I would have said and done.   However, from what I know I can be certain about some things.   I am sure that I would have seen the proposed arrest as a matter of high significance.  The arrest of the most prominent critic of the Government would present many challenges, both in terms of reality and perception.   There would be a major risk that whatever the grounds for the arrest, it would be seen by many Islanders as a political act driven by the agenda of the Islands Government.   I am sure that I would have asked the head of Operations to justify the action and I would have raised some challenges.   These would have included the following:
·         Was he sure that the action was lawful?   Had he obtained written legal advice and could he produce that advice?
·         Leaving aside the question of strict legality, was he satisfied that the proposed arrest and the means by which it was to be carried out were justified, necessary and proportionate?   Could the objectives of the investigation be achieved by less intrusive means?
·         Was he sure that the evidential basis on which he was operating was sound?  Had the evidence been checked?
·         What consideration had been given to the probable defence that the Senator had published material as part of his legitimate work as an elected politician?
·         It was known that the Senator published a “blog” which was widely read.   What consideration had been given to the possible claim that he was engaged in “journalism” and thereby able to claim some of the protections which apply to investigative journalists and their sources?
·         What resources were to be allocated to the operation and was there a written plan?
·         What was the plan for managing the political and media “fallout” from the operation?
16.  I do not know what the answers to these questions would have been, and consequently I do not know what I would have done had I been in post at the time.  I am however sure that had I felt that the operation was justified I would have allowed it to go ahead.   Had I felt differently I would have asked for an alternative plan.   In the absence of more information I do not know which course of action I would have supported.    What I can be sure of however is that if I had been convinced that the plan should go ahead then I would have ensured that everything possible was done to manage the perception problems which would inevitably arise from such an operation.   This might have included consideration of involving a UK force, either to complete the investigation or provide an element of advice or oversight.   I would also have given thought to when the Minister for Home Affairs should be briefed.   In cases such as this a briefing of the Minister soon after the commencement of the operation may be appropriate.
17.  Because of my circumstances at that time I learned of the arrest of the Senator through the Jersey media.   I saw a television interview with the Minister for Home Affairs in which I recall him saying that he knew nothing of the operation.   The media agenda was dominated by Senator Syvret and political critics of both the Force and the Government.   This led me to wonder whether the entirely foreseeable reaction to the operation had been properly anticipated by the Force, and whether a plan for management of the reaction was in place.   Without more information I cannot be sure.   I can only record that the impression gained from the media reports which I have seen is that the Force had been taken by surprise by the reaction to the operation, and the allegations and criticism which followed in the immediate aftermath.
18.  I have been asked by Mr Syvret if I will offer a view as to whether myself and the former Deputy Chief Officer, Mr Leonard Harper, were the real targets of the operation.   As I understand it the theory underpinning this belief is that the data protection issue was a pretext to allow police officers to gain possession of the computer or computers used by the Senator, and to search for incriminating “leaks” from myself or Mr Harper.   I do not have enough evidence to comment on whether this belief could be justified.   I can however offer some comment on the perceptions of the issue.   I can say with certainty that the motive described above was the subject of speculation from the onset, and that such speculation was not confined to those naturally inclined to believe the worst of the Islands Government and its institutions.   Shortly after the news of the arrest became public I received a telephone call from a prominent Jersey Advocate with whom I was on friendly terms.   I was asked directly if the seizure of the Senators computer was a “problem” for me and whether I would be in need of advice in consequence.   I was able to say that I anticipated no problem from the event.   This did not however stop the speculation as to the real motive of the operation.   I suspect that this speculation will continue for a number of years into the future.   It was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the police action and should have been anticipated and planned for.
19.  There is another matter which Mr Syvret alleges could have been a motive for his arrest and the search of his address.   This relates to the interest of his then partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey, in allegations of corruption relating to planning issues.   Mr Syvret states that some local people had approached Deputy Labey with their concerns and that she had drawn these concerns to my attention.   Mr Syvret goes on to state that the Police Officer who I had delegated to look into the allegations is the same officer who led the operation in which he was arrested, and Deputy Labey’s home searched.   He alleges that files relating to the corruption allegations were accessed as part of the police operation.   He has also heard that I had been involved in some exchanges with the then Attorney General in relation to the matter shortly before I was suspended.   Mr Syvret asks if I have any evidence to offer in relation to these matters.
20.  In response to these requests I refer the Court to evidence which I have already provided which touches upon some of these issues.   This evidence is in the second statement which I made to Wiltshire Police which was completed on 10th March 2010 under the relevant provisions of the Police Force (Jersey) Law which I referred to earlier.   The enquiry for which the second statement was made was named “Haven 2.” The Minister for Home Affairs has recently indicated that he will publish parts of that statement.   I understand that the Court will be able to gain access to the full statement should that be appropriate.   However, in order to assist the Court I have copied below paragraphs 63 to 67 of my statement which appear to be the paragraphs most relevant to the allegations by Mr Syvret.   These paragraphs are in a part of the statement in which I am listing issues which may have been recorded in files which are said to have been kept in relation to some political figures.   There is reference in the statement to “Operation Rectangle.”   This is the name given to the Jersey historic abuse enquiry.
63.  There is another series of events which may have made it into the files.   They happened quite close to my suspension so it is possible that they did not.   I will however give brief details in case they are relevant.   These involved allegations made against Senator Terry Le Main the Housing Minister.    I recall that Deputy Carolyn Labey got in touch with me and related to me information which she had received from people who said that they had inside knowledge of corruption in the granting of permission to build retirement properties on previously designated agricultural land.   The allegations were a bit complicated but in brief it was alleged that the Senator and at least one of his senior officials were in a corrupt relationship with a developer who was being assisted in turning lower value agricultural land into high value development land.   At my request Chief Inspector David Minty made some initial enquiries.  
64.  At some stage I spoke to the Attorney General and offered the view that these were serious allegations, and some form of criminal enquiry might be called for, if only to clear the air.   I was aware that word of the allegations had spread and they were being talked about widely in some circles.   I recall that at this time my relationship with the Attorney General was experiencing some tension.   The above matter was running parallel with another issue, which arose after the key period in Operation Rectangle, which concerned children who had been placed in situations of risk by the Social Services Department, apparently contrary to specialist advice.   In consequence of this action some of the children had suffered serious abuse and the offenders had been convicted.   I know that David Minty had submitted an initial report to the Attorney General following criminal proceedings against the abusers of the children, in which he recommended a criminal investigation into the actions of the Civil Servants involved in the decision to place the children at risk.   As I recall the Attorney General responded by suggesting that he might address the matter by having a discreet word with the Chief Executive.   I recall that I thought badly of this idea, regarding it as the sort of thing which had got us all into the “Rectangle” situation to begin with.   I might have had some exchanges and discussions in relation to that matter, but my recollection of it is not good at this time.   I mention this episode now as it was part of the background to what happened when I attempted to address the reports relating to the alleged corruption involving Senator Le Main.
65.  I had some email and telephone exchanges with the Attorney General about the above allegations.   My interpretation of these exchanges is that the Attorney General became disproportionately fixated upon the fact that the information regarding the alleged corruption originated from Deputy Labey, who was in a relationship with Senator Syvret, who was a persistent and determined critic of the Attorney General.   At some point in these exchanges Deputy Labey emailed me expressing lack of confidence in the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system, and expressed criticism of the then Bailiff, who is the brother of the then Attorney General.   A print-out of the email from Deputy Labey had been obtained by the Attorney General, and there were some exchanges about it in which I was involved.  The Attorney General reacted angrily towards Deputy Labey and demanded she apologise to the Bailiff or something of that nature.   At some point I asked him if he had obtained the copy lawfully, when I should have said “legitimately.”  He said he had obtained it as part of the bundle of papers submitted by David Minty, who was leading on the discussions as to whether there should be a criminal investigation.   I have since thought about this and on reflection I do not think that his use of the email was entirely legitimate.   He obtained the email in his capacity as the Head of the Prosecution Service, and then appears to have used it in his other capacity as the legal representative of the government.   This is of course a symptom of the multi-role of the Jersey Law Officers Department.
66.  In any event the outcome was that we could not agree, and the exchange finished with what I took to be an angry email from the Attorney General expressing apparent frustration at my perceived failure to sufficiently oppose the criticism of his brother the Bailiff, and finishing with a phrase something like “so be it,” which I read as having a threatening tone.   So far as I can recall, that was the last email I received from the Attorney General.   Not long afterwards I was suspended.   Initially it was claimed that my suspension was as a result of information relating to the Historic Abuse Enquiry which was received on 10th November 2008.   It is now known that this is untrue because the suspension notices were in fact prepared on the morning of Saturday 8thNovember 2008, which implies that the actual decision to suspend must have been taken in the week-ending 7th November 2008.   So far as I can recall this brings the decision close to my exchanges with the Attorney General regarding the need to investigate allegations of corruption at the heart of government.   This has led me to suspect that the exchanges which I have described in the above paragraphs may have been influential in the matter of my suspension.   Only a full and independent enquiry into the suspension with full legal investigative powers, which Ministers have so far resisted, can confirm or refute whether these suspicions have any foundation.
67.  However, for the purposes of the Haven 2 enquiry, I do not recall whether documents relating to the allegations against Senator Le Main were placed in the file to which this enquiry relates.
21.  I have nothing to add to the evidence which I provided in my statement dated 10thMarch 2010 relating to these issues.
Graham Power

2nd May, 2011

North Yorkshire


Stuart Syvret repost – private eye and Jerseygate

The Beginning of The End? 

Private Eye magazine has published an article concerning events in Jersey. They examine one of the things that I exposed – and the consequent actions taken against me by what they describe as “the intensely political system of justice in Jersey”. Click on the image to make the article expand to a readable size.

 Even though you’re able to read that particular article here, taken from the current edition, I urge people to buy Private Eye. Not only is it often very funny – it is the journal to read if you want to understand what’s really going on in the dark underbelly of power in Britain.
Whether they open its pages in pleasure – or fear – everyone in the country who is seriously involved in politics or the media reads Private Eye.
That means it is a main source of hard-core information for everyone who has power over you.
The article is short – eight paragraphs; but what do those few elements mean?
How to understand the gravity of what is revealed?
Not all readers will be familiar with the true nature of ‘Politics’ – just as many readers won’t be familiar with the wholly corrupted power-structure of the British Channel Island of Jersey; a tiny island through which hundreds of billions of dollars pass each year – and in which there is no separation of powers – no independent judiciary – no checks and balances – and not even an independent prosecution system. Although situated in the seemingly “respectable” heart of Western Europe, this island – an off-shore “protectorate” of the British establishment in London – is virtually totally lawless.
In the coming months – just how lawless – is going to be revealed.
But perhaps you don’t want to wait that long? Perhaps you want to know the score – truly “understand” the situation – right now?
OK – I’m going to tell you a story.
Or rather – Wikipedia is going to recount some modern history to you.
I reproduce below some sections of the Wikipedia entry for the Watergate scandal.
As you read the quotes – I invite you to bear in mind certain key words and phrases that Watergate has in common with Jerseygate. For any thinking person – it’s all here; all you need to know:
Democratic sabotage.
Breaking and entering.
Documents photographed.
Attorney General.
Denial of involvement.
Tip of the iceberg.
Solicitor General.
Interception of communications.


Unauthorized and improper.
Fiduciary responsibility.
Lieutenant governor.
Government officials.
Finance Director.
Deep Throat.
Secret fund.
Bank records.
Hush money.
Obstruction of justice.
Secret deals.
Abuse of power.
Refusal to disclose evidence.
It isn’t only those words that Watergate and Jerseygate share; the parallels between the two criminal enterprises are remarkable; extraordinarily close. Save for a few, key, differences.
As bad as it was, Watergate only involved illegal wiretapping, burglary, assault upon democracy, political espionage, bribery, abuse of Office, blackmail, abuse of power and perjury – for the “cause” of partisan political advancement.
Jerseygate – absolutely – parallels all of those actions and motives. But it’s worse.
When you’re reading the following quotes from Wikipedia – just imagine – if you can – how much worse Watergate would have been – if self-enrichment – the commercial racketeering of public Office – the outright theft of public money – child abuse – the use of the police force as a private army of burglars – misuse of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund – the criminal concealment of child-abuse – the criminal concealment of clinical murder – and the suborning of the judiciary – had been involved?
Imagine that – then you start to get close to understanding Jerseygate.
Wikipedia on Watergate; selected quotes:
“The Watergate scandal was a political scandal during the 1970s in the United States resulting from the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Effects of the scandal ultimately led to the resignation of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, on August 9, 1974, the first and only resignation of any U.S. President. It also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of several Nixon administration officials.
The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. The FBI connected the payments to the burglars to a slush fund used by the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President…..”
“…..The men who broke into the office were tried and convicted on January 30, 1973. After much investigation, all five men were directly, or indirectly, tied to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP, or sometimes pejoratively referred to as CReeP). The trial judge, John J. Sirica, suspected a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials. In March 1973, James McCord wrote a letter to Sirica, claiming that he was under political pressure to plead guilty and he implicated high-ranking government officials, including former Attorney General John Mitchell. His letter helped to elevate the affair into a more prominent political scandal…..”
“…..The unravelling of the cover-up began in the immediate aftermath of the arrests, the search of the burglars’ hotel rooms, and a background investigation of the initial evidence, most prominently thousands of dollars in cash in their possession at the time of arrest. On June 19, 1972, it was publicly revealed that one of the Watergate burglars was a Republican Party security aide. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, who at the time was the head of the Nixon re-election campaign, denied any involvement with the Watergate break-in or knowledge of the five burglars. On August 1, a $25,000 cashiers check earmarked for the Nixon re-election campaign was found in the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars. Further investigation would reveal accounts showing that still more thousands had passed through their bank and credit card accounts, supporting their travel, living expenses, and purchases, in the months leading up to their arrests. Examination of the burglars’ accounts showed the link to the 1972 Committee to Re-Elect the President, through its subordinate finance committee…..”
“…..The investigative finding, which cleared Bernard Barker’s bank of fiduciary malfeasance, led to the direct implication of members of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, to whom the checks had been delivered. Those individuals were the Committee Bookkeeper and its Treasurer, Hugh Sloan.
The Committee, as an organization, followed normal business accounting standards in allowing only duly authorized individual(s) to accept and endorse on behalf of the Committee any financial instrument created on the Committee’s behalf by itself, or by others. Therefore, no financial institution would accept or process a check on behalf of the Committee unless it had been endorsed and verified as endorsed by a duly authorized individual(s). On the checks themselves deposited into Bernard Barker’s bank account was the endorsement of Committee Treasurer Hugh Sloan who was duly authorized and designated to endorse such instruments that were prepared (by others) on behalf of the Committee.
But once Sloan had endorsed a check made payable to the Committee, he had a legal and fiduciary responsibility to see that the check was deposited into the account(s) which were named on the check, and for which he had been delegated fiduciary responsibility. Sloan failed to do that. He was confronted and faced the potential charge of federal bank fraud; he revealed that he had given the checks to G. Gordon Liddy and was directed by Committee Deputy Director Jeb Magruder and Finance Director Maurice Stans to do so.
On September 29, 1972 it was revealed that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance intelligence-gathering against the Democrats. On October 10, the FBI reported that the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the officials and heads of the Nixon re-election campaign. Despite these revelations, Nixon’s re-election campaign was never seriously jeopardized, and on November 7 the President was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides ever in American political history…..”
“…..The connection between the break-in and the re-election campaign committee was highlighted by media coverage. In particular, investigative coverage by Time, The New York Times, and especially The Washington Post, fueled focus on the event. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deep into the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and even the White House. Chief among the Post’s anonymous sources was an individual they had nicknamed Deep Throat, who was much later (2005) revealed to be former Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt, Sr.. It was Deep Throat who met secretly with Woodward, and told him of Howard Hunt’s involvement with the Watergate break-in, and that the rest of the White House staff regarded the stake in Watergate extremely high. Deep Throat also warned Woodward that the FBI wanted to know where he and the other reporters were getting the information which was uncovering even a wider web of crimes than first disclosed. In one of their last meetings, all of which took place at an underground parking garage somewhere in Washington DC at 2:00 AM, Deep Throat cautioned Woodward that he might be followed and not to trust their phone conversations…..”
“…..A taped conversation that was crucial to the case against President Nixon took place between the President and his counsel, John Dean, on March 21, 1973. In this conversation, Dean summarizes many aspects of the Watergate case, and then focuses on the subsequent cover-up, describing it as a “cancer on the presidency”. The burglary team was being paid hush money for their silence and Dean states: “that’s the most troublesome post-thing, because Bob [Haldeman] is involved in that; John [Ehrlichman] is involved in that; I am involved in that; Mitchell is involved in that. And that’s an obstruction of justice.” Dean continues and states that Howard Hunt is blackmailing the White House, demanding money immediately, and President Nixon states that the blackmail money should be paid: “…just looking at the immediate problem, don’t you have to have –handle Hunt’s financial situation damn soon? […] you’ve got to keep the cap on the bottle that much, in order to have any options.” At the time of the initial congressional impeachment debate on Watergate, it was not known that Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants much earlier than this conversation. Among later released recordings, Nixon’s conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972 is one of several tapes that establishes this. Nixon states: “Well…they have to be paid. That’s all there is to that. They have to be paid” During congressional debate on impeachment, those who believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense focused their attention on President Nixon’s agreement to make the blackmail payments, regarding this as an affirmative act to obstruct justice as a member of the cover-up conspiracy.
Cox’s refusal to drop his subpoena influenced Nixon to demand the resignations of Richardson and deputy William Ruckelshaus, on October 20, 1973, in a search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox. This search ended with Solicitor General Robert Bork. Though Bork believed Nixon’s order to be valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being “perceived as a man who did the President’s bidding to save my job.” However, both Richardson and Ruckelshaus persuaded him not to resign, in order to prevent any further damage to the Justice Department. As the new acting department head, Bork carried out the presidential order and dismissed the special prosecutor. Allegations of wrongdoing prompted Nixon to famously state “I’m not a crook” in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors on November 17, 1973.
Nixon was compelled, however, to allow the appointment of a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who continued the investigation. While Nixon continued to refuse to turn over actual tapes, he agreed to release transcripts of a large number of them; Nixon cited the fact that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes…..”
“…..On March 1, 1974, former aides to the president, known as the “Watergate Seven” — Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian and Kenneth Parkinson — were indicted for conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation. The grand jury also secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. John Dean, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and other figures had already pleaded guilty. On April 5, 1974, former Nixon appointments secretary Dwight Chapin was convicted of lying to the grand jury. Two days later, the Watergate grand jury indicted Ed Reinecke, Republican lieutenant governor of California, on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee.
Nixon’s position was becoming increasingly precarious, and the House of Representatives began formal investigations into the possible impeachment of the president. The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29, 1974 and July 30, 1974, respectively.
On August 5, 1974, the previously unknown audio tape from June 23, 1972, was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman meeting in the Oval Office and formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. Haldeman introduces the topic as follows: “…the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the–in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they have… their investigation is now leading into some productive areas […] and it goes in some directions we don’t want it to go.” After explaining how the money from CRP was traced to the burglars, Haldeman explained to Nixon the coverup plan: “the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters [CIA] call Pat Gray [FBI] and just say, ‘Stay the hell out of this …this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.'” President Nixon approved the plan, and he is given more information about the involvement of his campaign in the break-in, telling Haldeman: “All right, fine, I understand it all. We won’t second-guess Mitchell and the rest.” Returning to the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI, he instructs Haldeman: “You call them in. Good. Good deal. Play it tough. That’s the way they play it and that’s the way we are going to play it.”
Prior to the release of this tape, President Nixon had denied political motivations in his instructions to the CIA, and claimed he had no knowledge prior to March 21, 1973 of any involvement by senior campaign officials such as John Mitchell. The contents of this tape persuaded President Nixon’s own lawyers, Fred Buzhardt and James St. Clair, “The tape proved that the President had lied to the nation, to his closest aides, and to his own lawyers – for more than two years.” The tape, which was referred to as a “smoking gun”, hampered Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House…..”
“…..Charles Colson pleaded guilty to charges concerning the Daniel Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President was dropped, as it was against Strachan. The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974, and on January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977. Ehrlichman entered prison in 1976, followed by the other two in 1977.
The effect on the upcoming Senate election and House race, only three months later, was significant. The Democrats gained five seats in the Senate and 49 in the House. Watergate was also indirectly responsible for changes in campaign financing. It was a driving factor in amending the Freedom of Information Act in 1974, as well as laws requiring new financial disclosures by key government officials, such as the Ethics in Government Act…..”
“…..Since Nixon and many senior officials involved in Watergate were lawyers, the scandal severely tarnished the public image of the legal profession. In order to defuse public demand for direct federal regulation of lawyers (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of state bar associations or courts), the American Bar Association (ABA) launched two major reforms. First, the ABA decided that its existing Model Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated 1969) was a failure and replaced it with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983. The MRPC have been adopted in part or in whole by 49 states (and is being actively considered by the last one, California). Its preamble contains an emphatic reminder to young lawyers that the legal profession can remain self-governing only if lawyers behave properly. Second, the ABA promulgated a requirement that law students at ABA-approved law schools take a course in professional responsibility (which means they must study the MRPC). The requirement remains in effect…..”
“…..Meier told Donald that he was sure the Democrats would win the election because they had considerable information on Richard Nixon’s illicit dealings with Howard Hughes that had never been released, and that Larry O’Brien had the information. O’Brien, who had received $25,000 from Hughes, didn’t actually have any documents but Meier claims to have wanted Richard Nixon to think he did. It is only a question of conjecture then that Donald called his brother Richard and told him that Meier gave the Democrats all the Hughes information that could destroy him and that O’Brien had the proof. The fact is Larry O’Brien, elected Democratic Party Chairman, was also a lobbyist for Howard Hughes in a Democratic controlled Congress and the possibility of his finding about Hughes’ illegal contributions to the Nixon campaign was too much of a danger for Nixon to ignore and O’Brien’s office at Watergate became a target of Nixon’s intelligence in the political campaign. This theory has been proposed as a motivation for the break-in…..”

There is, of course, a particularly fundamental difference between Watergate and Jerseygate in that Nixon didn’t – quite – have the power to decide not to investigate and prosecute himself – unlike Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, William Bailhache and Tim le Cocq – the London appointed and protected Jersey officials at the heart of the scandal.

Those readers who are familiar with Watergate may remember some very famous quotes. For example, this from special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski:
“From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known; our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one – absolutely no one – is above the law.”
I hope that Jaworski was right in respect of the USA. In the coming months we will discover whether his assessment runs in the British sphere. Because as far as the British island of Jersey is concerned – ‘our “constitution” has not worked’.
The journalist who was most prominent in exposing the Watergate scandal was Bob Woodward, and it is difficult to avoid finding parallels with the work of today’s citizens’ media – and Jerseygate – when reading some of his quotations:
“Way before Watergate, senior administration officials hid behind anonymity.”
“The source known as Deep Throat provided a kind of road map through the scandal. His one consistent message was that the Watergate burglary was just the tip of the iceberg.”
“The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting as the step into making the cover-up. And when you understand the step, you understand that Richard Nixon lied. That he was a criminal.”

There are a lot of “Richard Nixons” in Jerseygate – but most prominent amongst them are the London-appointed succession of Attorney Generals– not least William and Philip Bailhache.

For reasons that are going to become clear – they were behind the assault, aggravated burglary and theft conducted against me – as carried out by the States of Jersey police under the leadership of David Warcup and Mick Gradwell.
Private Eye – in the article quoted at the head of this posting – reports that part of the episode thus:
“This gave the Jersey authorities the excuse they needed to act against a thorn in theirside. In an unprecedented move for alleged data protection offences, the police raidedSyvret’s house without a warrant, seizing and copying papers and computer hard drives containing, among other things, confidential correspondence with his constituents and information on other Jersey scandals.”
The Jersey police – obeying the orders of a personally and professionally conflicted and compromised Attorney General– engaged in burglary – assault -illegal breaking and entering – the theft of the sacrosanct private communications between the Jersey public and their elected representatives.
As Senator Sam Ervin – Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee observed: –
“If the many allegations made to this date are true, then the burglars who broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate were, in effect, breaking into the home of every citizen.”
Jersey’s Attorney General, and a suborned police force – following the illegal suspension of Graham Power – mounting illegal raids – burglary, theft –political repression – against your democratically elected representatives – against you.
I genuinely wonder about the rationality of the Jersey oligarchs and their vassals.
It isn’t clear – even now – that they understand the territory they have chosen to occupy.
But even if they don’t recognise the terra damnata they’ve voyaged into and the gravity of their position – a lot of other people now do.

Stuart Syvret repost – jon haworth


Purveyor of Death-Threats;

Solitary Lunatic;

Harasser of Women;


Intimidator of Witnesses; 

Invader of Privacy;


Handler of Stolen Material;


Oppressor of Other Internet Users;


Ranter of Obscenities;


Secretive Coward;


Apologist for Child Abuse Cover-ups –


A Typical Loyal Foot-Soldier of the Jersey Oligarchy.
You know, it’s often wisely remarked that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.
Jon Haworth  – the individual described above – was, until just recently, protected and encouraged by the Jersey oligarchy in a long-term campaign of illegal cyber-stalking, multi IP trolling, propagandising, criminal harassment of people who are opposed to the island’s establishment, the flooding of various web sites with pro-oligarchy comments under different make-believe identities, and – in particular – running a frankly deranged web-site that existed for the sole purpose of opposing the child abuse investigations.
It is so very fitting – so very apposite – that such an inadequate and dysfunctional character as Jon Haworth – should find such natural and supportive allies in the Jersey oligarchy.
It is an allegiance that speaks volumes – about Haworth – and the Jersey establishment.
You can listen to Jon Haworth’s threatening and deranged telephone call by going to the following blog then clicking on the YouTube link – though, be warned, he uses offensive obscenities:
Obnoxious, disturbing, alarming, pathetic – and yes, perhaps even faintly funny in a tragic kind of way – the telephone call is all of those things.
But – it is also something more significant than that.
It is the sound of a man supremely confident of the protections and support of the Jersey authorities.
OK, perhaps just a little too confident on this occasion. But even then – he would have got away with it had the call not been recorded – and had I not raised the matter in open court, as an attempt by him at witness harassment.
People like Jon Haworth are protected; protected by the Jersey oligarchy.
He has – only now – after many years of harassing and obnoxious behaviour – and after many different complaints to the police – by many different people – finally been prosecuted for this one, minor, charge.
Haworth fully expected to – and he would have – got away with it – again – if it were not for the recording – and the fact his conduct was raised in court.
Because when considering the behaviour of Jon Haworth, we are not – contrary to his claims in court – dealing with a one-off aberration in his conduct; a “moment of madness”. On the contrary – we are dealing with many years of similar, well-documented foul dysfunction.
I first wrote about Jon Haworth on this blog on the 20th May 2009. That posting can be read here:
I pieced together the true nature of Haworth’s conduct, following several different approaches from angry and worried constituents of mine, who had been – and still were in several cases – victims of Haworth’s cyber-stalking, invasions of privacy and intimidations.
Haworth’s conduct was so disturbing that he had even made death-threats to woman who had rejected his advances. These included such speculations as wondering “what caustic soda will do” to a woman’s face.
Jon Haworth’s brother is an ex-police officer – one who was sacked by Lenny Harper for corruptly misappropriating tax-payer funded Police Service IT equipment.
Decent people simply could not obtain protection from this obnoxious bully, so finally turned to me, to expose him and give him a taste of his own medicine.
So, as remarked above, it isn’t – in truth – at all surprising that Haworth should have found such natural bedfellows as Jersey establishment spin-doctors – and several current States members.
States members who have – with contemptible cowardice – used the blog-site Haworth runs – to churn out bile, lies and smears – under the cloak of anonymity.
It was such connections – and the fact the he provided such a “service” for the Jersey establishment – that led Haworth to become even more confident that he was untouchable and immune from the legal consequences of his behaviour.
In the coming days we will be taking a more detailed look at Jon Haworth’s conduct – and the many criminal complaints against him – and his political allies and support – and – in particular – the remarkable failures of the Jersey authorities to charge and prosecute him for the full range of offences he has committed.
In the mean time – listen again to Haworth’s telephone call – and reflect upon the fact that what you are hearing is actually a true representation of the current calibre and attitude of the Jersey establishment.


Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

Another day in Jersey’s Courts;
It’s just like the Nazis Never Left.

Right, I guess I’d better confess straight away; I can’t yet supply my readers with the crucial, core facts from yesterday’s ‘directions hearing’ in Jersey’s Magistrates’ court.

Shameful though it is – I spoke to the reporters from Jersey’s only “newspaper”, the Jersey Evening Post – more commonly known as The Rag – and gave them an exclusive.

So you will have to wait until the said journal emerges to in order to be appraised of the central public interest information.

Namely, what I was wearing when I attended court.

I even gave them the brands.

How’s that for a dynamite source?

In the mean time, readers of this blog will have to settle for a detailed description of the manifest ultra vires nature of the conduct of, and the proceedings of, what passes for ‘justice’ in Jersey’s courts.

It was, of course, tediously predictable in oh-so many ways.

I was given half-an-hour to read some medical evidence – and then denied an adjournment in order to give it detailed consideration or seek a second opinion.

I was – again – refused disclosure of much of the crucial evidence required to show the abuse process argument – and to evidence the public interest disclosure defence.

I was flatly refused an adjournment – even though – in light of newly obtained evidence – a new string to the defence argument – that of criminal malicious prosecution – now exists, and requires time and disclosures to prove.

And I was denied an adjournment to enable the time necessary to pursue legal disclosure against the UK Nursing & Midwifery Council – who have been inveigled by the Jersey authorities into not acting appropriately and decisively on the evidenced complaint against ‘Nurse M’ – because “it would aid Syvret’s defence” if they did.

Perhaps most remarkably – in light of such apparently and actually biased decisions by the Magistrate Bridget Shaw – she continued to refuse to disclose the facts of her conflicts of interest – and continued to maintain – in the teeth of all evidence and precedent – that she “was not biased”.

Tuesday’s instalment of Kafka did produce one benefit – the only one I thought might emerge, and the only reason I attended; I was able to state my grounds for the proceedings being unlawful and seeking a judicial review of the conduct of Jersey’s judicial authority, the ‘Judicial Greffe’.

Admittedly – it took the customary forceful arguments – against Bridget Shaw – to eventually make her accept the fact that she cannot conduct the entire proceedings without letting me state my defences. But after various attempts to stop me from speaking, I was able to read out my grounds for arguing that the conduct of the proceedings of the Jersey Magistrates’ court against me are unlawful.

And having so read it in open court – I reproduce the entire document below, in this posting.

It is long – and tedious – but forgive me; these grounds have to be correctly and fully laid at an early stage – in order to facilitate that long trek to Strasbourg.

Just as certain as was Bridget Shaw’s overt bias against me, and peremptory dismissal of my argument – was her absolute failure to follow the accepted legal authorities on apparent bias, or to state any alternative, superior authority.

Instead, her position was yet more of the customary vacuous assertion: “I have made my mind up – and that is that; I do not have to cite justification; no – I will not let you speak; I do not have to explain my departure from the established English and ECHR jurisprudence; if I say my friendships with all these other Jersey oligarchs – whose suggested identities I will not confirm – does not matter – then that is that. I will not name them.”

For someone who has had to halt proceedings to borrow law books from me – and who has – as can be seen from the evidence of the transcripts – simply done what she is told by the prosecuting lawyer, the heavily conflicted Stephen Baker – Bridget Shaw exhibits remarkable confidence in setting her face so strongly against the entire modern jurisprudence of England – and of Strasbourg – on the question and the tests of apparent and actual bias.

As is readily ascertainable from the authorities, and from numerous judicial codes, judges are obliged – obliged, it is not discretionary – to openly inform the parties to a case if the judge has any kind of personal acquaintance with a person or persons who could be seen to be involved with the parties to the case. It is true that the judge, at first instance, is able to determine for himself or herself whether such acquaintance renders them incapable of meeting the tests of objectivity.

But – inescapably – the judge must – at the very least – let all such potential conflicts be known to the parties to a case.

That is the case – so that should the parties feel the judge is wrong should they refuse to deem themselves conflicted and stand down from the case – the parties can appeal the judge’s decision.

Bridget Shaw – apparently uniquely in the entire sphere of the judiciary of the British Isles – knows better.

She considers herself entitled to withhold from the defence, and the court generally – the fact that she is closely acquainted with – and has worked with – key witnesses in this case – such as Emma Martins, the Data Protection Commissioner, and Dave Minty, the police officer who was instrumental in controlling the illegal police raid, but who has since – against the evidence – denied involvement.

Bridget Shaw thinks it acceptable for her to ignore every wise and circumspect guidance of British judicial practice – and refuse to inform the defence of the fact she worked with a heavily conflicted and involved party to this case – former Attorney General William Bailhache.

She – alone – and in apparent superiority to the practice of every learned high justice in England – considers it acceptable for her to refuse to disclose or acknowledge the fact that she has taken legal advice and guidance in this case from one Advocate Richard Falle – long-term political enemy of mine – and best friend of William Bailhache’s brother, and further political enemy of mine – former Bailiff, Philip Bailhache.

Still – I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised – we are forever informed by these clowns of the “superiority” of “The Jersey Way”.

Indeed – so superior are Jersey judicial proceedings, Magistrate Bridget Shaw needn’t really bother turning up herself – as all she ever does is parrot that which is asserted by the prosecution. She could simply leave her red cloak behind – and Stephen Baker could repeatedly swap it for his black one – as he dashed between the judge’s seat and the lawyers’ bench – conducting a dialogue with himself.

In fact, so “efficient” are Jersey’s judicial arrangements, I need not even attend myself.

Though Bridget Shaw kindly volunteered the information that – should I take the attractive decision to simply stay at home – the hearing would proceed without me, in any event.

Which was about the only useful and rational information that emerged from the oligarchy side in the entire hearing.

Though the heavily conflicted and routinely perjuring Advocate Stephen Baker was absent on Tuesday afternoon, another of Barking Bill Bailhache’s politicised factotums was present – who – apparently – satisfied Bridget Shaw against every – evidenced – objection of the defence – by the simple assertion that I “would never be satisfied that I would secure a fair trial in Jersey.”

The statement was wrong on two – rather obvious – grounds. Firstly, I’d quite happily accept that I would receive a fair trial in Jersey – if and when the prosecution system and the judiciary of the island were not so obviously politicised, professionally and personally conflicted – and was separated from the other arms of the state.

You know? Just like has happened in all respectable democracies for at least the last two hundred years.

And – I would also accept that I was receiving a fair trial – when I was not before a court that – on the evidence – such as Tuesday’s performance – was brazenly exhibiting actual bias, withholding evidence of conflicts of interest – in direct defiance of all English and ECHR jurisprudence – and was flatly denying me the opportunity to obtain and cite the evidence needed to prove my public interest disclosure defence.

The subtlety of that last point may be lost on the casual observer. In Jersey’s Data Protection Law, there are several statutory defences for disclosing ‘controlled data’, for example, a public interest disclosure defence, for the purposes of exposing crime or preventing crime.

But – quite obviously – in order to make such a defence work – an accused person has to show, through evidence, that the data they exposed did actually serve a public interest by exposing and preventing criminal activities.

I can certainly meet that evidential test – several times over.

However – the prosecution and Bridget Shaw are not going to let me.

“Oh yes” – they say – “we do not dispute the defendant’s right to run a public interest disclosure argument. We’re quite happy for him to make that claim.”

“However – what we’re not going to accept is for the defendant to obtain and adduce the actual evidence necessary for him to establish the justification of his public interest disclosure claim.”

You see – what the Jersey oligarchy want to happen, is for me to show up in court – and do no more than point to the statutory public interest disclosure paragraph in the Data Protection Law – and say – “there – see that paragraph? That’s my defence argument.”

And then sit down and shut up.

And be convicted.

What they simply will not countenance is for me to spend time examining in detail – in open public court – all of the mass of evidence – and the testimony of the two expert witnesses I have – that would prove – several times over – that “Nurse M” is – in fact – a psychotic, Harold Shipman-type medical serial killer – and – in particular – that that much was obviously ascertainable at the time of the original 1999 investigation – but the then prosecuting authorities – Attorney General Michael Birt and the man who is currently a legal partner of Stephen Baker, Cyril Whelan – unlawfully abandoned the inquiry, in connivance with the hospital senior civil service – in order to avoid a scandal.

So when it is reported in Jersey’s mainstream media, that I am able to avail myself of the public interest disclosure defence – just be aware – of that subtle – but crucial – twist: I am ‘permitted’ to point to the statutory defence clause in the law – but I am being unlawfully and improperly prevented from adducing the evidence necessary to justify such a defence claim.

You see, Mick Birt – the now the Bailiff, and Jersey’s prosecution system – Stephen Baker amongst it – are the same authorities largely responsible for letting off child abusing psychopaths such as Jane and Alan Maguire.

So it just wouldn’t do – would it – for a very highly evidenced examination of their malfeasant concealment of serious crimes to be conducted through open court.

Why, because that would prove that the Jersey authorities were – in fact – in the habit of concealing serious crimes for reasons of political expediency.

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

So when Bridget Shaw and Stephen Baker re-convene to conduct their ultra vires charade – just bear in mind – that what will be taking place is politicised and personally conflicted spin-doctoring – not the administration of justice.

And for those interested in some of the detailed argument as to why that is so – I re-produce below my submission to Jersey’s judicial public authority; a submission which will form the basis of the forthcoming judicial review application.

For those interested in my clothing – you’ll just have to wait until The Rag hits the streets.



7th September 2010

Advocate Paul Matthews
Deputy Judicial Greffier
Judicial Greffe
Royal Court Building
St. Helier

By e-mail


Unlawful nature of the administration of the judicial proceedings


Prior to Judicial Review Application

Substantive reply required within fourteen days.

Dear Advocate Matthews.

1. Thank you for your response to my e-mail of the 13th August which I had principally addressed to Magistrate Bridget Shaw.

2. In the final analyses, I felt I had no choice other than to take the unusual step of writing directly to the Judge in question, as my repeated efforts to obtain the important evidence sought in respect of my right to a fair trial, by writing to the court clerk – Magistrates’ Court Greffier David Le Heuze – had all been met with failure.

3. I will address my specific concerns in respect of both Magistrate Shaw and Mr. Le Heuze in greater detail below, but before doing so, I feel I should respond to you with some general points.

4. Firstly, you will note that this is a Letter Before Claim, prior to a Judicial Review application, written to the Judicial Greffe as the relevant public authority, and in connection with important public law matters.

5. In a nutshell, I have no doubt that certain, fundamental aspects of the administration of Jersey’s justice apparatus in respect of my case, have been unlawful. I am, therefore, writing to you and specifically asking that you pass this letter to the Judicial Greffier so that he may consider the requests I am making that he recognise and correct that unlawfulness.

6. It is my strong hope that he will recognise the various unlawful aspects of the situation, and that he will take the appropriate steps to address and rectify them. In the event that he fails to do so, I regret I will have to make the relevant Judicial Review application.

7. I note your wish to regard this correspondence as ‘now closed’, but with respect, the issues being addressed in this correspondence are important, and I do not feel I have been in any way unreasonable or vexatious in writing to you; the questions I raise are legitimate.

8. I accept that I introduced my request for information by reference to the Code of Practice on Public Access to Official information, but, frankly, the request for information is perfectly capable of consideration outside of that guidance, on any reasonable view.

9. You claim that: –

9.1.1. “The reference to the Code is something of a red herring. The Judicial Greffe (of which the Magistrate’s Court is a part) is a judicial department (see Departments of the Judiciary and Legislature (Jersey) Law 1965). It is not an “authority” as defined in the Code of Practice nor a States Department for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.”

10. With respect to the Code, I would point out that it is not legislation – merely a Code. It does not fix and apply a statutory framework within which the handling and disclosure of information – “official” or otherwise – is defined in law. It is merely a guide – to which public authorities should, as a matter of good practice, adhere. Given the non-legislative status of the Code, it follows, therefore, that public authorities, such as the Judicial Greffe, are not prevented from following those general principles of transparency.

11. I must also explain that the Code – very clearly – defines a “minimum” standard of openness. It suggests that maximum transparency should be the starting point – and that information should only be regarded as confidential when it is necessary to do so.

12. The general principles embodied in the Code are no more than an entirely reasonable set of guidance that any objective person could expect to be followed by any public authority in Jersey.

13. Therefore, if anything is a “red herring”, may I respectfully suggest that it is your attempt to argue that the general – entirely reasonable principles of transparency embodied in the Code – should not apply to a ‘public authority’, such as the Judicial Greffe.

14. Even if – hypothetically – your claim that the Code did not apply to the Judicial Greffe was correct, such a state of affairs would be largely irrelevant to the requests for information.

15. Instead, any objective person would consider the status of the Greffe as a ‘public authority’ – then consider whether, as such, it should comply with moderate and reasonable requests for information that fall within its purview – quite regardless of whether the department is captured by the Code.

16. The question is – ‘is it reasonable for any ‘public authority’ – in the year 2010 – to seek to withhold relevant information that comes within the ambit of that public authority’s formal responsibilities – in the absence of any especially compelling reason for non-disclosure?’

17. I do not believe that the proverbial ‘reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus’ would regard it as right that a modern ‘public authority’, such as the Judicial Greffe, should regard itself as impervious to reasonable requests for information.

18. You state: “The information you seek as to whether David Le Heuze (the Magistrate’s Court Greffier) is related to Ernest Le Heuze (a person convicted in the Royal Court) is not official information.”

19. You later go on to state that, “Even if the Code were applicable the information sought is not official information.”

20. I’m afraid I cannot agree with your definition of ‘official information’. I did spend some considerable time studying the principles of FOI codes and legislation when I was in the States, and I’m afraid it is a common gambit of authorities who wish to avoid gathering, collating and disclosing information that is within their purview to use arguments of the type you advance.

21. The question is not whether the information sought is actually, a priori, gathered, held and collated when the request for disclosure is received. Rather, the question is, ‘is the information sought, information that should reasonably be within the ambit of the authority?’ For example, ‘does the information sought have a clear relevance to the official activities of the public authority in question?’

22. If the answer to questions such as those two is affirmative, the process then moves to questions such as, ‘is the information sought actually reasonably obtainable by the authority in question?’ Or ‘is the request manifestly unreasonable?’ For example, some information sought might be so wildly outlandish as to not form a reasonable request.

23. On the reasonable basis described above, I turn to the actual questions and your responses. You state that the Judicial Greffe does not maintain records as to whether any of its staff are related to those who are tried and/or convicted before the courts.

24. I have no doubt that that claim is correct. Indeed, I go further – and state that I, personally, would not expect the Judicial Greffe to maintain such a general record.

25. However – that, quite obviously – is not really the point.

26. The point is, when the Judicial Greffe receives a question in a specific instance, concerning a relationship between a member of staff and a person convicted of crimes – and the relationship in question could be argued to have a bearing upon the objectivity of the administering functions of court proceedings in which the actual crimes the relative was convicted for have a clear and direct relationship to the accused in the current proceedings – the Judicial Greffe is, in all reasonableness, obliged to seek out the facts sought – and supply them to the present accused.

27. That is, quite regardless of any Code – or, indeed, any FOI legislation, if Jersey had any.

28. I say that because there is very clear UK case-law on the need for the appearance of objectivity to be maintained in courts, and how it is possible for such objectivity to be tainted by apparent conflicts involving staff in Magistrates’ courts.

29. So rather than considering my requests for information under the Jersey Code, rather, the requests should have been considered as a proper request for evidence, needed to test whether the proceedings against me can withstand being tested against extant UK case-law.

30. Indeed, I would argue that given the peculiar nature of Jersey’s Magistrates’ Court Law and the nature of its proceedings in general, and, even more significantly, the very strange nature of the conduct of those proceedings against me – the requested information is of even starker importance.

31. Therefore – my questions concerning the possibility of apparent bias or actual bias on the part of court staff involved directly in administering my case – and my questions concerning similar issues of apparent or actual bias in respect of the judge hearing the case – are entirely proper, reasonable and of the very kind that the relevant public authority – the Judicial Greffe – most certainly should answer.

32. I trust that clarifies my position and purposes in seeking the information?

33. Turning from the general to the specific, you state: –

33.1.1. “These matters arise in the context of judicial proceedings as opposed to administrative proceedings you need to draw your concerns to the attention of the presiding judge in the context of the criminal proceedings. These concerns will be included in your submissions on actual or apparent bias in those proceedings. If you are aggrieved at decisions made by the Magistrate there is a right of appeal and possibility of application for the Magistrate to state a case.”

34. There are, if I may say so, several flaws in that statement.

35. It is, obviously, a truism to state that ‘these matters arise in the context of judicial proceedings’. Why else would I be writing to the Judicial Greffe in connection with them? The Judicial Greffe is the ‘public authority’ responsible for the administration of Jersey’s judicial apparatus.

36. That being the case, the matters I raise are, most certainly, ‘administrative’.

37. For example, the Judicial Greffe employs staff, such as Mr. Le Heuze. As the employing department – the Judicial Greffe – quite plainly – has a responsibility for the suitability, competence, performance and appropriateness in particular instances, of its staff. Fulfilling those responsibilities is, clearly, ‘administrative’.

38. In the instant case, the Judicial Greffe is in no different a position to, say – by analogue – the Planning Department.

39. For example, if I were a Planning Minister, or the Departmental Chief Officer, or Chief Executive to the States, I would expect – simply as a matter of basic standards – Planning Officers to avoid conflicts of interest – apparent or actual. Thus if a planning application were to go before Planning Officer A, for consideration and recommendation – and there was some reason that caused the applicant to have been involved in some controversial matter that also touched, in a personal way, Planning Officer A, I would expect the automatic non-involvement of him with the case of that applicant.

40. Further – if the hypothetical applicant in question actually became suspicious of the existence of such a potential for an apparently biased decision – and actually asked the questions, and raised the matter himself with the Planning Officer, or his employers, I would – most certainly – expect a full and frank disclosure at first time of asking, and immediate withdrawal.

41. However, the applicant should not be placed in such a situation at all – because the Planning Officer – and his employers in this hypothetical example – are perfectly aware of the potential for tainted, or apparently tainted administrative decisions at the very outset – and should thus have ensured non-involvement in the first place.

42. It can be seen – indeed, it is established in law – that the public has a right to expect impartial and objective treatment from public authorities. In order to meet that reasonable standard, public authorities will – from time-to-time – have to be aware of potential conflicts of interest on the part of their employees and, even more so when specific questions are raised, investigate such potential conflicts. Therefore “information” concerning the potential for bias on the part of staff must – unavoidably – be “official” information. It is information that is essential to the proper and effective managing and performance of a public department.

43. But, alas, the Judicial Greffe has failed to meet those, good administrative standards.

44. You admit unambiguously the very clear state of knowledge of the Judicial Greffe in respect of David Le Heuze’s involvement – no-doubt deeply traumatic and distressing involvement – as a witness for the prosecution – in a case of child pornography charges – brought against his own brother, Ernest Le Heuze.

45. You state this: –

45.1.1. “David Le Heuze informed me of matters prior to Ernest Le Heuze’s presentation before the Magistrate’s Court. Arrangements were put in place so that David Le Heuze had no involvement with the case or access to any of the papers. This was particularly important in view of his position as a prosecution witness.”

46. So that the point I am making is absolutely clear and unambiguous, I state to you – as I did in my early questions to David Le Heuze himself – that in no way, shape or form, was I implying any kind of ‘guilt by association’ when raising this issue.

47. On the contrary, I consider that he did a thoroughly admirable thing in being a prosecution witness against his own brother; an act that cannot have been anything other than profoundly and deeply upsetting in all kinds of ways.

48. Rather, my point is this: whether conscious of it or not, no person could go through the trauma of having to help to convict one’s own brother of child porn charges, without it leaving emotional scars, psychological effects or feelings of anxiety – and of confused anger – whenever the subject of child abuse issues arises.

49. I have been at the very centre of attempts during the last three years to root-out and expose many decades of concealed child abuse in Jersey. Indeed – in all the post-war years – I was the only States member to have ever recognised the issue and to have spoken-out against the crimes.

50. Although the charges against me relate to the Data Protection Law – and my allegedly unlawful public exposure of a psychotic serial-killer – who is to say that whenever the administration of my case came across David Le Heuze’s desk – and every time he sat in court staring at me during those many directions hearings – he did not feel some form of resentment – of anger – towards the whole subject? Given the circumstances – how could he not look at me – of all people – and not be reminded of the family trauma of his brother’s crime? How could he not have strong emotions about it? Especially as I was outspoken in the media at that time – as Health & Social Services Minister – in stating that I wanted Ernest Le Heuze sacked without further prevarication.

51. Who is to say that such possible strong feelings on the part of David Le Heuze were not responsible for some of the many delays in the early stages; delays that hampered my defence? For example – the delays in obtaining the court transcripts? Or – perhaps David Le Heuze’s advice and influence on setting the dates for hearings might have worked to my disadvantage – some dates clashing with States meetings? Perhaps – given the status of Magistrate Shaw as a Relief Magistrate – and very obviously in need of frequent advice – some of which came from Mr. Le Heuze, he has had an influence on her?

52. Perhaps last October – when the court was witness to the extraordinary and disgraceful spectacle of Advocate Stephen Baker stating (once he had read the report of my expert witness and realised the prosecution simply had no answer to it) that I would have to “make an application to have that evidence necessary to prove my public interest disclosure defence deemed ‘admissible’” – Mr. Le Heuze should have quietly advised Magistrate Shaw that, actually, the evidence was already admitted – and Advocate Baker was attempting to abuse the court’s procedures?

53. Perhaps he felt – and feels – a deep and growing resentment towards me for re-opening and raising what must be a deeply painful episode for him? Perhaps that’s why I have been prevented from obtaining this information I sought – information important to my defence – for many weeks, by the intransigent refusal of Mr. Le Heuze to answer, or answer meaningfully, my e-mails?

54. Why have I not received transcripts of the proceedings since my return to Jersey? Even though I have requested them from Mr. Le Heuze? The failure – the refusal – to produce the transcripts, massively disadvantages me as a reluctantly self-representing non-lawyer.

55. Perhaps such a resentment towards me – even if sub-conscious – explains why I am having to be dragged through the court every two weeks – even though I am unwell, and the court has now received no less than three written medical confirmations of that fact – for what appears to be no other purpose than the calculated humiliation of me? Why is the Magistrates’ Court Greffier not recommending that the administration of the court should cease to waste time, resources and money on convening for pointless, ten minute hearings that are serving no legitimate purpose?

56. Of course – I would predict that the Judicial Greffe and David Le Heuze would argue that no such bias has occurred. I would argue that it has; that there has been actual bias.

57. However – regardless of whether actual bias has occurred – what most certainly has occurred is the appearance of bias.

58. The administration of the proceedings against me fail – plainly do fail – the test of the appearance of objectivity.

59. Given the nature of the role played by the Magistrates’ Court Greffier in Jersey law, the obvious administrative flaws in the handling of my case – and the extraordinary mater – like an unremarked elephant in the room – of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – no ‘reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus’ could look at the case and say there is no danger of a suspicion of bias in the administrative processes.

60. Whilst I feel it fair to say that some blame must attach to Mr. Le Heuze for not recognising the conflict himself, and then having no involvement in my case – by far the greater blame for this disastrous situation must lay at the door of the Judicial Greffe itself. As the employing department – and – moreover – one that is centrally involved in what should be the good administration of justice – and which should have been aware of the crucial importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias – the Judicial Greffe should have had a higher standard of administrative performance, and ensured its staff were not placed in conflicted situations.

61. Indeed, I harbour no ill will towards David Le Heuze – and can imagine the resentment and distress he must feel at having been placed in this situation when his employers should – most clearly – have exercised a greater duty of care towards their employee – and a greater duty of care towards the accused person; me.

62. Mr. Le Heuze and I have both been placed in an utterly intolerable and unacceptable position.

63. Indeed – it is nothing less than extraordinary that this conflicted situation was allowed to persist – even though the Judicial Greffe was fully aware of it – until I eventually discovered the relationship between the two Mr. Le Heuzes for myself.

64. The fact that such a lack of candour – and, remarkably, such an apparent failure to be aware of the case-law on bias and apparent bias – should exist on the part of the Judicial Greffe must, I’m afraid, now cast great suspicion upon the candour and wisdom of the department generally.

65. Let me state the fact plainly – the involvement of David Le Heuze as the Magistrates’ Court Greffier, and principal administrative court clerk in my case, makes the entire proceedings thus far unlawful.

66. It goes without saying that any and all involvement of Mr. Le Heuze in any matter involving me must cease with immediate effect.

67. In that regard, you state in your e-mail: –

67.1.1. “I should be grateful if you would refrain from addressing any further correspondence on this particular subject to David Le Heuze.”

68. You may rest assured that – for reasons of his clear conflictedness – I will not be engaging in any further communications with Mr. Le Heuze – and nor will I be attending any future court proceedings unless I receive an assurance of his non-involvement.

69. I would, therefore, be grateful if you would supply me with the name and e-mail address of an alternative Magistrates’ Court clerk with who I may correspond in connection with the administration of my case?

70. As stated earlier, this is a Letter Before Claim, written prior to a Judicial Review application. I will, therefore, summarise below the formal requests I am making of the Judicial Greffe.

71. I will now turn to the questions I raised in respect of the presiding Magistrate, Bridget Shaw.

72. In my e-mail to David Le Heuze, dated 19th July, and – which was subsequently forwarded by me to Magistrate Shaw and other recipients including yourself in my e-mail dated 13th August – I asked a number of direct questions of Magistrate Shaw. Though re-numbered here for clarity, In essence, the questions relevant to Ms. Shaw were these as follows.

73. In direct connection with my defence – and the established and absolute right to a fair hearing not tainted with actual bias or the appearance of bias – I require to know the following information: –

74. 1: The identities of all persons from who Ms. Shaw has received any form of legal advice or guidance in respect of any aspect of the cases against me?

75. 2: Specifically, a confirmation as to whether any such advice has been received from Advocate Richard Falle?

76. 3: Expanding upon the points raised in questions 1 & 2 above, I require knowing whether Ms. Shaw is personally aquatinted with, or has socialised with, or has worked with, any of the following individuals:

76.1. Philip Bailhache;

76.2. Michael Birt;

76.3. William Bailhache;

76.4. Richard Falle;

76.5. Tim Le Cocq;

76.6. Stephen Baker;

76.7. Cyril Whelan;

76.8. Emma Martins;

76.9. Bill Ogley;

76.10. Robert Key;

76.11. Frances Hamon;

76.12. John Le Breton;

76.13. David Benest;

76.14. David Minty?

77. The legitimate requirement for this information should be plain.

78. In the event of an application for Judicial Review having to be made, I can describe in some detail – and on an evidenced basis – the reasons why each of the individuals listed in question 3 have to be viewed as having various interests in respect of me, my work in the interests of child protection, and my other political and campaigning activities, so as to render professional or personal relationships with them contaminating of any judge presiding over a case involving me.

79. Indeed, in respect of most of the individuals listed, I can produce prima facie evidence of their direct engagement in criminal actions – for example, breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 1969, breaches of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, conspiracies to pervert the courses of justice, and of misconduct in a public office.

80. Moreover – I can likewise demonstrate – on a clearly evidenced basis – my lawful and extensive political work against such crimes.

81. Thus – any association between any of the said individuals and Magistrate Bridget Shaw must – unavoidably – heavily contaminate her, and render her wholly incapable of appearing impartial.

82. But in this matter, I need not even rely upon the established authorities to support the risk of apparent bias; for in this case – I can readily demonstrate actual bias.

83. The evidence is there to be read in the court transcripts of the many directions hearings, and the resultant decisions. I am not aware of a more Kafkaesque set of proceedings to have occurred before a Jersey court since the Nazi occupation ended.

84. Magistrate Shaw has consistently appeared as nothing more than a puppet of the prosecuting lawyer, Advocate Stephen Baker. He has – quite literally – simply been telling her what to do during many of the crucial preliminary hearings. And her acquiescence to the directions of Advocate Baker has been quite breathtaking.

85. And were that not bad enough Advocate Baker himself is wholly conflicted in these matters – and should be playing no role whatsoever in any case involving me – because he worked for, and in connivance with, the former Attorney General William Bailhache, in unlawfully obstructing the police in their efforts to secure the extradition and prosecution of the two child abusers, Jane and Alan Maguire.

86. I having been very closely involved in efforts to secure justice on behalf of the victims of the Maguires.

87. The proceedings against me as presided over by Bridget Shaw are – manifestly – illegal.

88. They are unlawful not only on the grounds of apparent bias – but also of actual bias.

89. The conduct of the original unlawful police investigations against me and my former partner – and the conduct of the prosecution itself against me – are both unlawful.

90. A Letter Before Claim, prior to seeking Judicial Review, has already been written by me to the relevant public authority in Jersey, the very heavily conflicted Attorney General.

91. In that communication I have made it clear that, as a result of me obtaining further evidence – it is now plain that the entire enterprise as conducted against me is a malicious prosecution; a criminal enterprise wilfully engaged in, in order to conceal other crimes and to protect certain public authorities and senior individuals working in those authorities, from the consequences of various malfeasances and criminalities committed by them.

92. I explain that – because – at present – it looks very much as though the Judicial Greffe and the Judicial Greffier – and Magistrate Bridget Shaw – are also parties to that broader criminal enterprise.

93. And to cite just one of the grounds for having that view – one need only consider the deeply disturbing lack of candour – and otherwise inexplicable intransigence – on the part of the Judicial Greffe, of Magistrate Shaw, and of Mr. Le Heuze – in refusing to answer perfectly reasonable and appropriate questions.

94. Questions that do – quite clearly – go to the heart of the tests established in English case-law for assessing such matters as ‘apparent bias’, let alone actual bias.

95. Indeed, in recent years the test has evolved to match that of the ECHR Article 6 test.

96. It is no longer necessary for an applicant to demonstrate a “real danger” of apparent bias.

97. Instead, the test is now “whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”.

98. Applying that test, there is not the remotest possibility that the Magistrates’ court as constituted in respect of the charges against me, could avoid a real possibility of the tribunal being biased.

99. And – I’m afraid – the wholly unreasonable and unsustainable refusal of David Le Heuze, and of Magistrate Shaw, and of the Judicial Greffe itself – to answer the questions I pose in respect of confounding experiences and of conflicting and compromising friendships and other personal relationships can only massively add to the already very strong appearance of bias.

100. Why – it must be asked – if there were no issues to hide – no relationships to conflicted individuals who could be viewed as parties to the case – the startling reluctance to simply answer the reasonable questions I have posed?

101. After all – all am seeking is a fair hearing before an objective and impartial tribunal.

102. A very long established legal right.

103. One cannot but draw the obvious conclusion from the starkly displayed fear of Jersey’s judicial authorities to exhibit candour in these matters.

104. That conclusion being that the entire proceedings against me are unlawful – starkly and graphically so.

105. That they can satisfy the tests of neither traditional English jurisprudence, nor that of Strasbourg.

106. Obviously – setting aside for one moment the questions that flow from that fact for a number of the current senior individuals – the implications for the present structure of what passes for the administration of justice in Jersey are significant – to say the least.

107. That – however – is not my problem.

108. Most respectable and civilised jurisdictions accepted over two hundred years ago, the need for a separation of powers in order to protect the public good through the existence of effective checks and balances. Many of the contaminations that befoul this case arise because of overlaps in the basic state functions. That the Jersey authorities – belatedly – are to be forced to face that reality and modernise is, frankly, no bad thing. It is – unarguably – to the public good.

109. I’m afraid it is not sustainable for the Judicial Greffe, as the employing public authority – to attempt to cast aside and disown its responsibility for the appropriateness of the involvement of its staff in certain situations or cases. Plainly – what we are dealing with here – in the peculiar context of Jersey- is not merely one unfortunate and rare instance where a judge – Magistrate Shaw in this case – happens to be personally conflicted. Instead – given the small size of Jersey – what we are facing is an inevitability; a structural weakness in the local system; an inherent danger of such conflicts of interest, and appearances of bias arising that – in the absence of a legislative decision to introduce a separation of powers – there must – unavoidably – be upon the public authority – the Judicial Greffe – a particularly acute duty of care to ensure that its employees do not find themselves in conflicted situations, and that members of the public are protected from the risk of being exposed to such conflicts.

110. The Judicial Greffe has failed in that manifest and reasonable duty. It has failed in the case of the presiding judge, Magistrate Shaw – just as it has failed – for reasons explained in detail above – in respect of the Magistrate’s Court Greffier, David Le Heuze.

111. It is not even as though such problems were unforeseeable. Even in a large nation-state, such as the UK, the dangers of apparent bias, actual bias, and other issues concerning the performance, conduct and professionalism of judges are well-recognised.

112. For example, the Guide to Judicial Conduct (Second Supplement published in March 2008) describes the expectations and requirements upon judges very clearly. In explaining how such guidance arose from the ‘Bangalore principles of Judicial Conduct’, the guidance says this:

112.1.1. “On a wider stage, what have become known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct were initiated in 2001. The Bangalore principles arose from a United Nations initiative with the participation of Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. A draft code of judicial conduct was prepared by a group comprising senior judges from Commonwealth countries. This was discussed at several conferences attended by judges of both common law and civil law systems and has also been considered by the Consultative Council of European Judges. Revised principles were prepared in November 2002 following a round-table meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague and were endorsed at the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission at Geneva in April 2003.

112.1.2. The principles are succinctly stated as six “values” and their stated intention is: “To establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. They are designed to provide guidance to judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct. They are also intended to assist members of the Executive and Legislature, and lawyers and the public in general, to better understand and support the judiciary”. The principles are:

112.1.3. (i) Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.

112.1.4. (ii) Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

112.1.5. (iii) Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

112.1.6. (iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge.

112.1.7. (v) Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

112.1.8. (vi) Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

113. In this context, principles (i), (ii), (v) and (vi) are engaged.

114. The document later states – in section 3, “Impartiality” – at Paragraph 3.12: –

114.1.1. “If circumstances which may give rise to a suggestion of bias, or appearance of bias, are present so that they are to be disclosed to the parties, that should be done well before the hearing, if possible. Case management procedures will often enable this to be achieved.”

115. It is clear – very clear – notwithstanding the extremely telling – and alarming – failure of the Magistrates’ Court Greffier, Magistrate Shaw herself, and of the Judicial Greffe to exhibit candour – that Magistrate Shaw is certainly surrounded with a range of circumstances which “may give rise to a suggestion of bias or appearance of bias” – but yet, not only were these potential conflicts not disclosed to the parties – well, certainly not the defence, at least – before the case started – they were not even disclosed at the beginning of the case.

116. Indeed – utterly extraordinarily – even now – all concerned appear to be doing all they can to continue to conceal the facts of her personal, professional and social acquaintances which – most certainly – do give rise to the appearance of bias in the case.

117. The fact that – even at this stage – it can be regarded as acceptable for Magistrate Shaw and the Judicial Greffe to continue to seek to conceal such fundamental facts from the defence is staggering; it is a fact – of itself – that could easily stand alone to damn judicial practice in Jersey.

118. And as paragraph 3.12, quoted above, says of the dangers of conflict arising, and the need to avoid them, “case management procedures will often enable this to be achieved.”

119. The general policy for case management procedures is a responsibility of the relevant public authority – in this case the Judicial Greffe. If such policies are too inadequate, weak – or non-existent – to ensure that judges and parties are not placed in situations of apparent or actual bias – then that is a clear administrative failure on the part of the Judicial Greffe.

120. An administrative failure that has unlawful consequences.

121. Hence one of the grounds for the Judicial Review application.

122. A further, seriously confounding issue arises in the context of the Jersey Magistrates’ Court Law – and the degree of power, control and direction the prosecuting lawyer has over proceedings.

123. Effectively – and at risk of repetition, the evidence is there to be observed in the transcripts; the prosecuting lawyer, Advocate Stephen Baker is, effectively “conducting” the proceedings. Even were he not directly and personally conflicted in this case – he would still be engaged in what is, effectively, a quasi-judicial role in largely determining the direction of the prosecution he himself is running.

124. But – additionally in this case, he does have a direct conflict of interests in respect of his involvement – as an agent of the previous Attorney General, William Bailhache, in seeking to obstruct the police in their efforts to secure the extradition of the child abusers, Jane and Alan Maguire from France.

125. Given both his personal, professional conflicts of interests – and the de facto quasi-judicial role he is fulfilling – Advocate Baker is being permitted to be ‘a judge in his own cause’.

126. This is directly counter to the ancient dictum, “nemo judex in causa sua”.

127. It is – therefore – of even starker and greater importance that a judge – any judge – presiding over this particular case should be absolutely robustly independent – and categorically free of any bias whatsoever – actual or even perceived.

128. Magistrate Bridget Shaw cannot hope to meet that test.

129. As the famous dictum from an English case – as long ago as 1924 has it, so I’m hardly advancing some outré revolutionary notion – “justice must not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

130. English courts have gone on to rule that, ‘a real danger of bias might arise if there were personal friendships or animosities between the judge and any member of the public involved in the case. (My emphasis.)

131. There are certainly, ‘friendships’ between Magistrate Shaw and certain of those who could be described as parties to matters concerning me.

132. But a higher test that the tribunal must meet is now established; no longer is it necessary for an applicant to show “real danger of bias” – but rather, as quoted above, “whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”.

133. Magistrate Bridget Shaw is known – to varying degrees and in various ways – to at least some of the fourteen individuals I list above, and in respect of which individuals I have made repeated attempts to determine the full nature and extent of Magistrate Shaw’s relationships to.

134. I have been wholly unreasonably and improperly thwarted in obtaining that information.

135. That is clearly so on the authorities. As all sources state, there are very few cases where a certain relationship will – automatically – trigger an appearance of bias and of recusal. Virtually all such cases – of disputed impartiality, or of apparent bias – hinge about the specific facts that pertain in each particular case.

136. Yet – in spite of the fact we are all aware of an arguable range, of possibly multiple conflicts of interest – the facts – the evidence necessary for determining whether bias in this case – apparent or actual – exists, is being unlawfully withheld from the defence.

137. In your e-mail to me, you state this: –

137.1.1. “These matters arise in the context of judicial proceedings as opposed to administrative proceedings. You need to draw your concerns to the attention of the presiding judge in the context of the criminal proceedings. These concerns will be included in your submissions on actual or apparent bias in those proceedings. If you are aggrieved at decisions made by the Magistrate there is a right of appeal and possibility of application for the Magistrate to state a case.”

138. As I observed earlier, there are several problems with your assertion.

139. As explained, the apparent and actual bias of these proceedings – of this tribunal – in respect of me, are not some “unforeseeable” and rare act of happenstance.

140. The profound problems with these proceedings arise and exist in the Jersey context as a direct result of unlawful policies – and the unlawful absence, in some ways, of policies – of the relevant public authority – the Judicial Greffe.

141. For example – not having in place a set of administrative procedures that automatically engages all reasonable steps to protect clerks, judges and parties from what are clearly going to be a frequency of apparently or actually conflicted cases in the context of Jersey, is – plainly – a structural administrative failure of the public authority, as opposed to being a one-off error of judgment by one or two employees.

142. Therefore your suggestion that the matters I raise can be dealt with within the extant proceedings, as just another passing judicial consideration for the judge, is not, I’m afraid, sustainable.

143. Indeed – as much was confirmed by Magistrate Shaw herself during the last hearing, when challenged by me on the point of the failure for me to be supplied with answers to my questions concerning her conflicts of interest.

144. We would be able to consider her exact words – but for reasons suggested above – the completion and supply of transcripts has dried up since my return to Jersey, thus greatly hampering my defence.

145. However – going from memory, Magistrate Shaw responded to my question by denying that she had received my e-mail, and went on to say that if I had any concerns or questions concerning her status or conduct in this case – the proper course of action was for me to direct such enquiries to the Judicial Greffe.

146. It can be seen therefore, that a sharp difference of opinion exists between your assessment of the situation, and that of the Magistrate herself, who confirmed – when I drew my “concerns to the attention of the presiding judge” – that the Judicial Greffe was the proper authority with which to raise such questions.

147. You do suggest that Judicial Review may be a possibility, but also suggest that appeal, or ‘case stated’ may be the appropriate way forward, as Judicial Review is usually regarded as a remedy sought at last resort, once more immediate remedies have been exhausted.

148. I would welcome your observations as to whether my understanding is correct, but my recollection is that such remedies are not available to me?

149. You may recollect that I did, in fact, challenge the impartiality of Magistrate Shaw at the very outset of the case. She rejected my application to recuse – deeming herself non-conflicted – and capable of not risking the appearance of bias. (As is now plain – whether we care to admit it or not – Magistrate Shaw was seriously mistaken in that assessment of her position, and was, indeed, in further error in not, a priori, declaring any and all such possible conflicts of interest, but those are separate points.)

150. Having so raised my concerns, at the outset – and having had them rejected, I attempted to appeal Magistrate Shaw’s decisions to the Royal Court, and the Magistrate did, in fact, state a case.

151. My appeal was heard by Sir Richard Tucker – and it was rejected on two grounds. Correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding was that the judgment suggested that Magistrate Shaw was “premature” (I think that was a polite way of saying she was in error) in even having stated a case.

152. Further – and perhaps more significantly – it was concluded that no right of appeal lay against interlocutory decisions of a Magistrates’ Court. The law appeared to be that all the accused could do was wait until convicted – then appeal against conviction and/or sentence.

153. Therefore – the alternative remedies you suggest have, in fact, already been attempted by me, rejected and exhausted. You also, incidentally, point out that the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982, does not capture the Judicial Greffe.

154. So far as I can tell – Judicial Review is the only remedy left open to me – should I wish to secure to myself the inalienable right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.

155. I am not aware of any case-law – English or ECHR – that deems it acceptable for courts of first instance to be hopelessly conflicted and biased – and incapable of constituting an impartial and objective tribunal – merely because a appellate court exists which may overturn such miscarriages of justice.

156. I do not, therefore, have any intention whatsoever, of surrendering to a biased and plainly unsafe court of first instance – thus allowing myself to be wrongly convicted – in the vague hope that some higher court might – one day – overturn that conviction.

157. I have an absolute right to a fair trial – as guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

158. That right applies – quite unarguably – in courts of first instance. Such courts are not excused from maintaining the standards of the impartial administration of justice, merely because some possible avenue of appeal exists.

159. In this case, the court of first instance – the Jersey Magistrates’’ Court – and in the particular circumstances of the case against me – being heard by the conflicted judge, Bridget Shaw – does not constitute an objective and impartial tribunal.

160. And – most significantly – it fails to meet that standard, because of fundamental administrative practices – unlawful policies – of the relevant public authority – the Judicial Greffe.

161. The profoundly serious issues that arise in this case are the result of structural unlawfulness in the policies and practices of the Judicial Greffe.

162. It is on that basis I shall be making an application for Judicial Review.

163. That is, reluctantly making such an application – in the absence of the Judicial Greffier accepting the obvious and serious defects in the authority’s policies and practices, and the unlawfulness of the consequences in my case – and acceding to my requests, which I itemise below.

164. Decisions I am asking the Judicial Greffier to make.

165. For all of the reasons described above – and more besides, the conduct of the judicial proceedings involving me has been unlawful.

166. I am, therefore, asking the Judicial Greffier – as the relevant public authority to: –

167. 1: Recognise the manifest unlawfulness of the conduct of the judicial proceedings against me.

168. 2: Recognise that both the Magistrates’ Court Greffier, David Le Heuze – and the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw – are both conflicted – incapable of meeting the appearance of impartiality – and are biased, in both appearance and substance, even if sub-consciously.

169. 3: Recognise that the many aspects of manifest unlawfulness in the proceedings arise as a result of a structural and policy failings of the Judicial Greffe as the relevant public authority.

170. 4: Recognise that the unlawful administrative failings of the Judicial Greffe have caused the administration of justice in Jersey fall below acceptable standards of impartiality and objectivity.

171. 5: Recognise that in failing to have in place the correct and lawful administrative procedures and safeguards, the Judicial Greffe has improperly exposed employees, judges and parties, to needlessly difficult and stressful situations of conflict.

172. 6: Advise the prosecution that the proceedings involving me so far have failed to meet the requisite standards of objectivity and impartiality, have failed to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, and must, therefore, in the interests of justice, be begun again, from day one.

173. 7: Ensure that the re-started proceedings are fully compliant with the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, and with the most recent English authorities.

174. 8: Ensure that all of the information I have sought in respect of conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest – and of bias and apparent bias – as itemised at paragraphs 74, 75 and paragraph and sub-paragraphs 76 above, is obtained and supplied to me without further prevarication.

175. 9: Recognise that the failures of the Jersey judicial apparatus to meet the requisite standards for the good administration of justice has caused, and will continue to cause very severe damage to the population of Jersey by denying to them the proper protections of the law and the impartial and objective administration of justice – by administering a judicial apparatus so obviously skewed in favour of the powerful – by failing to ensure the administration of justice in Jersey occurs upon a level playing-field – by failing to ensure that judges and court staff are properly managed, administered and guided in such ways as to ensure that conflicts of interest and apparent and/or actual biases are avoided – by administering a judicial apparatus that enables wrongdoing by the powerful to persist – by permitting Jersey’s judicial apparatus to be used as an instrument of political oppression – the current policies, practices, decisions and administration of the justice apparatus of Jersey by the Judicial Greffe has caused massive harm to the public good.

176. 10: Recognise that in respect of the many manifest wrongs I have suffered as a result of the unlawful acts and omissions of the judicial apparatus of Jersey, I am owed appropriate recompense and justice.

177. As stated at the beginning of this letter, I require a substantive response answer within 14 days.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Syvret.


Stuart Syvret repost – choices

Who Wants to –

Or Who Can –

Continue to Live

With “The Jersey Way”?

I remarked a long time ago that I was going to enjoy this by-election.

Well – perhaps “enjoy” isn’t quite the right word – as I’m resigned – in deep sadness – to the fact that our community is in the iron grip of a nakedly corrupt establishment – who are virtually impossible to combat – and whose malign stupidity and unashamed wickedness has done so much damage to Jersey’s future.

When I wrote that I would enjoy this election, what I meant was that I personally was unconcerned at the result. And, indeed, such freedom has enabled me to achieve one of the main objectives I had in triggering this by-election; namely – introducing some of the plain truth to the voting public during these weeks of campaigning.

For example – at the Grouville husting a question was asked to the effect: ‘whether the recently departed Housing Minister, Terry Le Main, was correct to have resigned?’

Of course the candidates all said ‘yes’ – but several of them expressed sympathy for Le Main, suggesting that “he hadn’t been allowed a proper defence”.

Being free to tell the truth – I was able to answer – to applause and the laughter of recognition – that three-quarters of the population of Jersey had known perfectly well for decades that Le Main is a brazen crook and text-book example of a spiv – who should have been prosecuted years ago – never mind remaining as a States member.

I was also able to briefly compare and contrast the “right to a defence” that some believed Le Main had been denied – with the absolute denial of any such right to me during several examples of straightforward, unlawful political oppression I have been subjected to by our oligarchy over the years.

And – by happy co-incidence – who should be sat at the back of the audience but former Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache.

I was able to point at Phil and state –”there is Philip Bailhache – that man unlawfully prevented the official publication of my Ministerial Notes, which were to be tabled as my defence against the engineering of my dismissal as Health & Social Services Minister.”

A statement of fact that even he could make no attempt to dispute.

We only have sixty seconds to answer each question – but had time permitted, I would also have recounted in detail Bailhache’s absolute and unlawful denial of any opportunity for me to defend myself when he had me unlawfully suspended from the States for six months – back in 1996 – because I had discovered and exposed a friend of his, then Senator Reg Jeune, engaging in straightforward corruption.

Though the decent population of Jersey know perfectly well that corruption is the very flesh and bones – and the very fuel – of power in the island, the climate of fear which the oligarchy have so carefully maintained over the decades prevents most people expressing that knowledge publicly.

The corruption is never combated because we do not make it an issue of public political concern – because we’re too afraid to openly state its existence. People look at what the Jersey oligarchy are able to do to people of no-less seniority than the Chief Constable of the Police Force, Graham Power, and the senior Senator, me – and they think, ‘my God – if the crooks can get away with such obviously unlawful oppression of people in positions of power – what will they do to me and my family if I upset them?’

But our problem is doubly bad. Not only are we a community in which the public cannot lead the campaign for a clean-up, because decent people live in fear – we also cannot look to our police, prosecution system, judiciary, media or politicians to root-out the corruption for us – because all of those entities themselves are contaminated with the sleaze.

Of course, there are many decent and honest people in the police – and even a few decent and honest politicians. But when the people who call the shots – who wield the power – want the bent status quo to remain in place – a decent silent majority can be powerless.

Which is why – especially in light of the gravely serious revelations of the last three years – I have had to shoulder the burden of becoming Jersey’s first ever political anti-corruption campaigner; a nightmarishly difficult task, that I’m not prepared to undertake – unless I have the clear support of the people of Jersey.

Hence this by-election – and the opportunity it affords me to engage in some plain speaking.

So – at the hustings at St. Saviours and at St. Peters – I used my opening five minute speech to inform the audience of the conduct of Terry Le Main – his friend, Geoff Noel – and associates – and a bent land-rezoning exercise.

A nakedly corrupt enterprise so large-scale and brazen – and consequently damaging to the oligarchy, should the truth emerge – that they have done everything in their power to conceal it.

Those actions have – so far – included a bent cop unlawfully leaking to the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, correspondence from the person making the criminal complaint. Bill Bailhache in turn, unlawfully leaking that correspondence to his brother – then Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache – who then further broke the law by seeking to intimidate and harass a States member contra Article 47 of the States of Jersey Law.

No matter how bad you imagined the corruption – it is, actually, worse.

For example – and though I’ve published this before, it bears repeated contemplation – just consider this quote taken from a secret file-note written by the Chief of Police, Graham Power, in July 2007, in respect of senior civil servants trying to stop me from exposing child protection failures: –

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

What greater corruption can there be than the concealment of child protection failures; the concealment of child abuse?

Yet the corrupt and criminal concealment of child abuse – is what Bill Ogley and the other civil servants were engaging in – to the disgust of Graham Power – back in July 2007.

But – Graham Power was unlawfully suspended – and the evidenced crook, Bill Ogley, continues to be in your employment as the fourth most expensive civil servant in Britain.

Very strange, no?

As I sit and write this – in June 2010 – there is more than enough published evidence to show any thinking person that the Jersey establishment corruptly sabotaged the child abuse investigation – and that unlawfully oppressing Graham Power was a necessary part of that conspiracy.

But there were also other motives; other pressing reasons why the Jersey oligarchy just had to remove Graham Power from his post. After all – when you have been as corrupt and malfeasant as the Jersey establishment has, for so long, been – what could be more frightening than a straight, tough, nationally respected Chief Constable?

And it is one of those other reasons that I am going to recount in this posting.

I want to begin by reminding readers of something I wrote in my blog posting of the 21st April: –

“However – in the catalogue of errors that has been the Jersey oligarchy’s conduct throughout the child abuse scandal – there are three disastrous misjudgements – three terminally suicidal actions – that there was never, really, going to be any recovery from.

Firstly, the decision by the Jersey cabinet – to join with the corrupt civil servants in the deliberate concealing of child abuse – and their engineering of my dismissal as a Minister.

Secondly, the – frankly insane – action of corruptly and improperly suspending the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force. A nationally respected Chief Constable and holder of the Queens Police Medal. And doing so – in support of, of all things – the sabotaging of a major child abuse investigation.

Thirdly, the crazed, Mugabesque, police-state arrest, searching and oppression of a prominent opposition politician. The theft of his constituents’ private data, the denial of his human rights, the refusal to provide legal representation and attempts to prevent him from even adducing the evidence he needs to defend himself.”

Those three criminal and anti-democratic acts of the Jersey oligarchy have several characteristics in common.

However, there is one, shared, characteristic that is more noteworthy than the others.

Behind each of those bizarre and, frankly stupid, acts – there is one, prominent individual – who has been the same controlling and driving force at the centre of each of the three malfeasances.

That individual is William Bailhache.

Former Attorney General – and now Deputy Bailiff.

An evidenced liar and crook.

Back in 2007 he provided a great deal of ‘legal’ ‘advice’ and ‘guidance’ to the then cabinet, in their efforts to engineer my dismissal. He also failed to warn them of the criminality of their actions, and those of the civil servants involved – indeed, he joined in with those criminal actions. He also directed and used then – as his successor as Attorney General continues to do to this day – the Data Protection Commissioner to unlawfully harass and oppress me.

However – it isn’t those events of 2007 that I want to focus upon. Instead, I want to examine some – seemingly – unconnected events that occurred in 2008 and 2009; the events I have briefly explained at a couple of the hustings meetings.

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

Jersey is a very small island; around 45 square miles. Land is at a premium. With a population of around 100,000, demand for property is very high. For example, a standard, three-bedroom family starter home, of the kind a newly married couple might buy, cost an average sum of over £500,000.

There is also a tremendous amount of money in Jersey – albeit poorly distributed. Those many people on lower and middle incomes often struggling to make ends meet in an environment that has a cost of living at least equivalent to central London. And the cost of accommodation is the major part of that financial burden.

So – land in short supply; huge demand for homes; the off-shore finance industry injecting lots of money into the local economy – and lots of developers and property speculators – often including local oligarchs – looking to make fortunes in a feeding-frenzy of development.

A market in which a piece of green-zone land might have its already high value – multiplied thirty times – in the course of a single afternoon – if the States can be persuaded to re-zone in favour of development.

There we have a picture of Jersey’s second-largest economic sector: the accommodation industry.

Now – here’s a funny thing. Did you know that during the last four decades of immense economic expansion in Jersey – we have never had as much as one, single case of planning corruption?

Which is quite amazing – when you think about it – because of all the types of corruption to be found at local and regional government level, throughout the developed world, planning corruption is – by far – the most common. One reads of prosecutions and convictions whenever one studies the subject.

Jersey is a small island with a limited supply of land – some of the highest property values to be found anywhere on the face of the planet – with billions and billions of dollars floating around in the island, vast fortunes to be made, and no central government to monitor the conduct of the local authorities. But – in-spite of that seemingly toxic amalgam of ingredients – which could have been assembled for the sole purpose of breeding corruption on a massive scale – Jersey has never – ever – had as much as one single example of planning corruption.

Isn’t that just brilliant?

Now – there are two possible explanations for that state of affairs.

1: Jersey property speculators – and the island’s authorities – have all been people of superhuman moral perfection – thus causing Jersey to be unique in the entire global history of modern, developed societies – in having no planning corruption.

Or –

2: Planning corruption has been rampant and endemic in Jersey for decades – but the island’s oligarchy have rather liked things that way – hence no charges or prosecutions; it being just another example of “The Jersey Way” at work – a bit like the child abuse. A lot of people know it’s going on – but they’re involved in it – or they consider it too “impolite” to mention it – or they’re too terrified of retributions from the powers-that-be to do anything about it.

I invite readers to weigh-up the probabilities for themselves.

Meanwhile – back to our narrative.

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

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

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

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

For example –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mr. Noel happens to be a personal friend of the then Housing Minister, Terry – Tel Boy – Le Main.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By now, the date was early November, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However – he was unable to see that this happened.

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

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

The “official” version of events went like this: the recently appointed Deputy Police Chief, David Warcup, received an “interim report” by Brian Sweeting, of the Metropolitan Police. This being a peer-review of the historic child abuse investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In March 2009, I made an unrelated public interest disclosure, by posting on this blog a police report concerning a matter of the utmost seriousness. However – not withstanding the fact that the report in question had already become a public document following its tabling as evidence in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the Jersey oligarchy decided to use its internet publication by me, as an excuse to mount an unlawful massed police raid against me. At that time I shared the home of Deputy Labey.

I stepped from the door of the house shortly after 9.00 a.m, and was immediately descended upon by three unmarked police cars, each carrying two non-uniformed officers, who leapt from the vehicles and surrounded me – informing me that I was under arrest for a supposed breach of the Data Protection Law. Another two officers were present to take part in the search, and another two had been waiting in a van in the road outside, equipped with a battering-ram – of the kind used in drugs raids – “had it become necessary to effect a forced entry”.

I spent seven and a half hours locked in police cells – whilst the police turned over the Deputy’s house from top to bottom – including the children’s’ bedrooms.

The police had no search warrant.

The Data Protection Law clearly stipulates a due process for investigating any alleged breach – part of which includes the requirement to obtain a search warrant should any raid become necessary.

The police chose to ignore that law – instead relying – unlawfully – on an emergency search power. This was a tactic quite deliberately settled upon by the Attorney General, William Bailhache and David Warcup – because had the raid been conducted under a search warrant for the purposes of the Data Protection Law, the search could only have been undertaken to the extent reasonable and proportionate for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.

And that just wouldn’t do.

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

But – also this.

The Attorney General, William Bailhache was increasingly alarmed at the continuing interest of Deputy Labey in the question of possible planning corruption. Clearly – he and the rest of the oligarchs were determined to bury it and protect the establishment from a scandal. But – was a continuing cover-up feasible? What if the Deputy simply had too much information?

Only one way to find out.

The Deputy and I worked from the same office on the premises.

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

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

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

He was Dave Minty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well – look at this way; such a unique and impressive record – as having had no planning corruption in Jersey during all the post-war years – doesn’t get maintained by accident.

That, then, is one case-study of just how corrupt and defective governance in Jersey is.

This by-election is happening for one reason – and one reason only.

Because I and others have fought against such corruption; fought against it above and beyond the call of duty. But in the final analyses – we few can’t defeat it.

Only the people of Jersey can do that.

But, do they want to?

The out-come of the by-election this Wednesday answers that question.

And no matter what the answer – if I win, or if I lose – Thursday morning is a bright, new start.