POSTCARDS FOR PRINCE EDWARD PART ONE

The veneer that would have Establishment Jersey a 'just & democratic' jurisdiction is as thin as the plate on the island's Mace

For all of my first-hand experience of the black comedy that is the Jersey Establishment in its embittered dotage, being contacted by several members of the public whilst being off-island for a couple of weeks reminded me just why the outside world increasingly view the behaviour of the political and legal 'elite' of my home island as some kind of neo-feudal reality TV freak show.

Millions and millions of pounds wasted unnecessarily by our 'justice' overlords; further proof that the same 'justice' system is accountable to no one; newly proposed work laws akin to something out of Dickens and even a proven political liar and thief passing himself off as some kind  champion of Planning department morality;  - its obviously been a boring old time whilst I have been away.

So here is Part One of a handful of 'postcards' of Bald Truth for HRH Prince Edward to ponder before he arrives in the Island. No doubt to be assured by manically smiling men in cloaks, tights and very expensive pinstripes just how we in Jersey are (to borrow a Perchardism) a veritable beacon of democracy...

£8 million of our taxpayers' money squandered

 

A former CIA agent once observed American policy on Cuba over more than 50 years - the deliberately cruel sanctions against ordinary people; the economic sabotage, never mind the multiple assassination attempts sponsored on the island's President - as being 'like a wolf howling at the moon' i.e bereft of all logical thought. What has any of this got to do with Jersey? Well, the fact is this analogy would also aptly describe the Establishment/Law Office obsession with trying to bury ex-Senator Stuart Syvret.

Money well spent during a recession?

Just consider this. Though not reported by the likes of Establishment Party mouthpiece the Jersey Evening Pravda, the fact is that one of the cases brought against Stuart Syvret has now finally concluded. Amazing enough in itself. Yet what is really so disturbing here is that while the whole case has ended as a shambles - probably a deliberately contrived one - our wonderful Law Office has still spent around £8 million of your and my money to achieve...eh, NOTHING!

The Jersey legal industry - its surely better than working...

Who has benefited? Mmmmm? Not the member of the public who the case revolved around. Not the wider taxpaying community. Not any of the Island's record number of unemployed. No. The only people who have all done very nicely thank you (outside of keeping the 'justice department' boys and girls in overtime) are those fine people: the Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers.

Indeed, one of these admirable justice stalwarts, so my legal infiltrator assures me, got around £400,000 for achieving what my late old gran used to call Sweet FA! (She meant Fanny Adams I'm sure). Will an itemised breakdown now be offered by Chief Minister Gorst voluntarily? What do you think readers? Senator Ferguson definitely should be sharpening up her fine tooth comb and magnifying glass for the accounts...

Don't mention the Top Secret court case (again!)

Meanwhile here's a nice little prediction just for you from me to end this Syvret 'postcard' on. The much talked about (but almost zero MSM reported on) 'Secret court process' against the former Senator will soon also have to report that this too will have run up bills at the taxpayers' expense in the region of a staggering 20 x the annual budget of the Data Protection Commissioner's Office! And yet what will have been achieved in this case?

You guessed it - precisely NOTHING

 Zilch. Not a sausage. Not a single beneficial thing for anyone. Other than once again making a few more of the millionaire members of the 'Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers' even richer. So given that hard-working Public Sector workers are being spun the standard Gorst/Ozouf tripe about there being no money for even a modestly realistic pay rise; and essential health and education services are continuing to be scrapped just who will have actually authorised all of the above squandering of our money? Better still just who will be held accountable?

As he tells States Members that he is the man responsible for Data Protection perhaps Senator Paul Routier would like to come on here next week and tell us. I don't know why but somehow I just don't think he will.

Its not just the Law Officers who are totally unaccountable to anyone

Remember the shock to a lot of people a couple of months back when it emerged that the Law Officer who gave the go ahead for the bugging of Curtis Warren's hire car could not be disciplined as even the Law Society wanted?

Could not be disciplined even though the police officers acting upon the advice were being hung out to dry by the Establishment in another secret 'show trial' constructed to give the impression of a responsible jurisdiction? Well if you thought this farce was just a one off let me give you another brilliant example of how the Jersey Law Officer are not only totally out of control but are indeed demonstrably accountable to no one.

Shhhh! I'm going to have to mention our court case again

As regular readers will be well aware, in blatant contempt for Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which Jersey is required to conform the Bailiff's Office allowed one Jurat John Le Breton to sit in judgement of evidence and fact on Shona's and my defamation case even though he was impossibly conflicted.

This was a 'man' who was a demonstrable longtime friend of a director of the JEP's owners - even entertaining her to dinner at his home! A 'man' who is also proven within the suppressed Sharp Report to have happily looked the other way on evidence against another of his then friends, the sickening predatory Victoria College paedophile, Andrew Jervis-Dykes.

To all who believe in justice, fairness and accountability it goes without saying that Le Breton clearly should NEVER have been allowed to become a Jurat in the first place given his malleable commitment to both evidence and justice. Yet given that the Bailiff - indeed two Bailiffs - had failed so miserably to act to remove him you would at least think that when such appalling failings are publicly identified someone, somewhere has to have higher authority to be responsible for holding all to account?

Except this is Jersey...

The deeply disturbing truth, however, is that NO ONE anywhere is apparently charged with such a crucial oversight over Jersey 'justice' failings. Not possible you say? Well just consider these facts.

As I have previously reported, UK Justice Minister, Lord Tom McNally tells us that he 'cannot intervene' because Jersey as a Crown Dependency is a self-governing, and thus independent jurisdiction with its own 'justice' system. (Oh but we certainly know all about that, don't we!) Indeed, as I have also highlighted previously Lord McNally quite incredibly even went on to propose that he might offer to 'refer our concerns back to Sir Michael Birt' - the very man who let this abuse of ECHR Article 6 happen!

So could the Jersey Appeal Court process be the way to go?

Unfortunately it seems not. You see the solitary Appeal Court Judge who knocked back our first application to be able to appeal against this Kangaroo Court style process has also now stated that whether an individual is demonstrably unfit to sit as a Jurat or not - as John Le Breton clearly was - is NOT for the Appeal Court to rule on either!

Just for good measure the Judge in question, Mr Beloff, even goes on to make the rather remarkable statement within his judgement that, regardless of the damning evidence of the Sharp Report the Electoral College must have had full confidence in Le Breton's ability. yet how this judgement was reached you really have to wonder. You see it completely overlooks the rather important little fact that Jurat Le Breton was appointed by the 'Electoral College' in 1998.

The Sharp Report didn't come out until a whole year later in 1999! 

The Electoral College generally will just not have known about Le Breton's wholly inappropriate attitude and commitment to evidence, fact and justice. Indeed, the only people who will have known for sure will have been the likes of then Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache - who sat on the Victoria College Board of Governors whilst all of this happened - and his successor, one Sir Michael Birt

It is the Bailiffs of course who preside over the 'Superior Number' - the only body who according to the Attorney General has responsibility for acting on any Jurat being revealed to be unsuitable for the role. And it is has been two successive Bailiffs of course who failed to do a damn thing about Le Breton. Well, they wouldn't really would they. They both will of known about his malleable commitment to truth and justice and yet did not stop his name going forward to the Electoral College back in 1998!

All too incredible and disturbing for words I think you would agree. Yet to top it all off, within his judgement in refusing us the right to Appeal, the Judge even went on to actually criticise Shona and I for having first gone down the 'political route' of writing to the UK Justice Minister - rather than the same Appeal process of which he states has no mandate to rule on Le Breton's appalling failings! I'm honestly not making any of this up - you just couldn't.

Which brings us back to the 6 million dollar question

Just who is accountable for the failings of both the Bailiff and Jurat Le Breton in all of this? The answer is apparently: NO ONE!

Yet you still have to go through the 'legal' process (helpfully making the Closed Shop of Jersey Lawyers I mentioned in the Stuart Syvret 'postcard' shed loads more cash on the way of course) before you can hope to progress to the UK Privy Council and ultimately - let's be quite up front here - almost certainly the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Of course, like us by then you will likely be absolutely skint but quite likely that is all part of the plan. Yet understand all of this and you begin to see just why - in contrast to every other jurisdiction in the world - there has apparently never been a miscarriage of justice in the Island according to an answer I recieved from the Jersey Attorney General.

As to just who can claim the 'fame' of developing the Jersey 'justice' system so perfectly imperfectly down the years I do not know. But the fact must surely be acknowledged: the late and unlamented Roland Friesler of Nazi Party infamy really couldn't have set up a 'legal' system where the wronged just can't win unless they are willing to slog through hell any better.

Keep the Faith - someone has to!

 

 

DEMOCRACY & FAIRNESS - FIGHTING FOR EQUALITY FOR ST. HELIER

Senator Bailhache might not want it. Senator Ozouf might be terrified of it. Deputy Power might not be able to spell it. But DEMOCRACY is something a few of us genuinely believe in.

 

I publish below the report accompanying my proposition on seeking equality of vote for the third of the population that live in St. Helier i.e. an Assembly of 46 x Members. This to consist of 34 x Deputies and 12 x Constables. The maximum number on the Executive within this proposal to protect the Troy Rule would be 20.

As readers will be aware I tried to get this put forward as one of the versions for the public to vote upon within the hijacked referendum. This is only being lodged again now - as opposed to letting the new PPC bring forward 'fair' proposals - simply because Senator Philip Ozouf is fronting an EDL (Establishment Defence League) move to slip through a watered down Option B that would simply move St. Helier voters from being 3rd Class voters up to 2nd Class voters.

 

Sorry, Senator. But 'fairness' is fair - or it just isn't...FAIR!

 

 

 

REPORT      

 

‘Equality and fairness are key elements of any truly democratic electoral system’

 

Background

This proposition proposing to reduce the Assembly to 46 Members has arisen primarily from the debacle of the recent referendum on reform. A referendum, of course, made a debacle purely by the weakness of a majority of States Members in allowing what had been voted for in 2011 to be a fully independent Electoral Commission – and thus free from political manipulation - to instead be hijacked by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache.

The not-fit-for-purpose ‘reforms’ that arose from this shambolic process - where no fewer than three pro-retention of the Constables politicians were subsequently allowed to sit let us not forget - has since led to an even more divisive propaganda campaign by those who, like it or not, were quite willing to wholly disenfranchise the people of St. Helier for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

Such discriminatory, vested-interest driven proposals should never have been allowed to go forward by the States, nor by any self-respecting jurisdiction claiming to be a democracy. Indeed, when considering this fact should it really be any surprise to us that 74% of the registered electors did not bother to vote? I suggest most definitely not.

Option B, it should never be forgotten - nor it be allowed to be glossed over by its supporters - made Jersey’s already significantly imbalanced in favour of the smaller, country parishes political system even worse. Reform is meant to mean improving things. The false impression the public were spun however was that we either had to vote to retain the Constables or have greater equality: the two apparently being irreconcilable. Add in deeply flawed questions and it was no wonder we got such a confused, unsatisfactory result and turnout.

Yet perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole referendum debacle is the fact that there was absolutely no need to propose such flawed reforms. For as I have twice demonstrated over the past year we could have a system that allows us to retain the Constables AND give the third of the population that reside in St. Helier the equality of vote which is obviously their right: aright that would be respected by any true democracy.

 

 

The proposal that both retains the Constables and gives St. Helier equality of vote

 

This proposition, which calls for a reduced Assembly of 34 x Deputies and 12 x Constables, does just this. And I submit it now simply to try and finally put the reform debate and the public disgruntlement with the impossibly flawed referendum proposals to bed – for a few years at least!  Yet for now I believe it should be quite sufficient to focus on the following brief facts. It not only creates a far more equitable system than we have at present; it also retains the much-quoted ideals of reducing the size of the Assembly from its present number. It is also clearly based around the concept of Option B – 6 x ‘Super-constituencies’ and an Assembly of just Constables and Deputies. Surely this is worth a little compromise from all sides in itself?

Yet my proposition does even more.

• An Assembly of 46, as proposed, would enable the highly important ‘Troy Rule’ principle to be retained. Something that will prove nigh impossible with a reduction to a 42 x Member States Assembly – a point that was a major concern for many within the debate that rejected Option B. Indeed, the Assembly of 44 now being touted by Senator Ozouf will also fail to do this due to the number of new Ministers being called for.

• This slight increase from the rejected Option B number of 42 x members by 4 to 46 will also offer potential to even allow one Member to take on the role of Speaker should, as many feel inevitable, the need to achieve a full and true separation of powers (i.e. ending the dual role of the Bailiff as Head of both Judiciary and Legislature) come to be supported by a majority within the Assembly or be forced upon us by the United Kingdom and/or Europe.

• Finally, though I personally believe the argument about saving money by reducing numbers to largely be a red herring this proposal would still bring about a significant ‘saving’ in the region of £230,000 on the present system of 51. A saving that would also, I repeat, not bring the huge risks of undermining democracy and efficiency that the reduction to 42 or even 44 might.

 

Can all sides finally compromise or will we be debating reform for another decade?

 

Let me thus reiterate what I said in the original debate. Whether some of us think retaining the Constables is the best system to benefit democracy or not it is a valid position to argue. It cannot, however, be allowed to take precedence over advocating as fair and equally weighted voting system as can be reasonably constructed. This proposal thus seeks to compromise by simply trying to correct, to a broadly reasonable degree, the democratic deficit that would be set against voters in St. Helier by retaining 12 Constables within 6 large districts should we have adopted either the original Option B or Senator Ozouf’s current proposals.

Indeed, it cannot be left unsaid that the proposal being put forward by Senator Ozouf is nothing more than a propaganda sop: offered in the hope of slipping through proposals for an unfair system by sleight of hand. I ask Members to please not be taken in by this shallow ploy. It does not address the weight of vote disparity faced by the like third of the island’s population residing in St. Helier in anything like the degree necessary. Of course, Senator Ozouf has been telling those who read his blog that this proposal (and the one from Deputy Green which advocated an additional 5 x seats for St. Helier) ‘goes too far’. This should be seen for what it is: nonsense and propaganda.

Surely equality of vote should be guaranteed for all and have no dependence at all on where one lives; country parish or urban?  I thus ask Members to compromise as I have shown a willingness to do; and now lend their support to this proposal. In doing so quite possibly finally put an end to the divisive fallout from the failed referendum process and allowing us to move forward to other, more pressing issues impacting the island

A note on the graphs contained and why I initially used total population statistics instead off the ‘Eligible’ voters format utilised by the Electoral Commission

As I pointed out in the spring the Commission’s decision to opt for basing its proposals on ‘eligible’ voter figures within the 6 districts rather than total population gives a wholly misleading slant to the public in considering the fairness of the options put forward. Excuses that such consideration would have taken it ‘outside’ of its mandate were in my view entirely without merit.

The significance of this error is best highlighted by example of the fact that the Commission’s approach conveniently knocked off some 6,632 people from the number of individuals that St. Helier Deputies and/or the single Constable would in reality have to represent. I repeat, just 11 x representatives to 26,890 looks an awful lot better in seeking to sell the Commission’s heavily imbalanced Option B proposals  than 11 x representatives to 33, 522!

As I also pointed out, it is equally true that the Commission’s use of ‘eligible’ voter figures would undeniably have been out of date long before the election of 2014 even comes about. Truth be told they are out of date now. Young people have come of age to vote. Immigrant workers unable to vote then – even though paying tax – will have achieved such status.

Of course, far more important is the principle that all should be entitled to political representation regardless of age or being in the island a full two years. Would any Member really turn away a request for assistance from such an individual? I certainly do not. I firmly believe the figures set out below which I used to demonstrate the unfairness of the original un-amended Option B speak for themselves.

Nevertheless, to help Members consider the various pros and cons of this proposition – especially when viewed against the watered down proposals offered by Senator Ozouf – I also include at the end of this report a number of charts and graphs utilising the eligible voter format to illustrate the hugely important impact of the proposals with regard to the best practice of the Venice Convention. These illustrate the original Option B; Senator Ozouf’s current proposals; my own proposition discussed herein; and even a version examining the impact if one were to opt to take away a couple of Deputy seats from the undeniably over-represented District/Super-Constituency 5.

My sincere gratitude for these goes to local political activist for democracy Sam Mezec.

 

The impact of proposals under the original Option B using total population

 

District No	Parishes/Vingtaines	Total Population	Number of Representatives	Public Per Representative
No.1	du Mont Cochon du Mont a l’Abbé de Haut du Mont au Prêtre du Rouge Bouillon	17,543	5.5	3,189
No. 2	Bas de Haut du Mont au Prêtre, Canton Bas de la Ville, Canton de Haut de la Ville	15,942	5.5	2,898
No. 3	St. Clement Grouville St. Martin	17,850	8	2,231
No. 4	St. Saviour Trinity	16,736	7	2,391
No. 5	St. Lawrence St. John St. Mary St. Ouen	14,178	9	1,575
No. 6	St. Brelade St. Peter	15,571	7	2,224

 

As explained then the above imbalance can only be rectified by one method that I suggest would be both fair and politically acceptable. This is to offset the clear deficit faced by St. Helier residents due to the impact of retaining the Constables by increasing the number of Deputies allocated by 4 to have 7 in each ‘Super-Constituency’ (district). Thus instead of 5 Deputies each (10 + 1 x Constable to be shared) the two St. Helier districts would elect a combined total of 14 + 1 x Constable (or 7 Deputies each plus a single Constable between them).

All of the other 4 ‘Super-Constituencies) would elect 5 x Deputies + a Constable each for however many parishes were contained within the ‘super-constituency’. This would bring the districts reasonably into line with the other districts. St. Helier District 1 having a population to representative figure of 2,339 and St. Helier District 2 having a figure of 2,125.

Of course, it is true that District 5 (St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Mary & St. Ouen) will still remain significantly over-represented set against each of the others. However, without reducing their number of Deputies by at least 2 this anomaly probably necessitates acceptance in the interest of finally moving a reasonable compromise forward as described.

Still not a wholly perfect system it is acknowledged. But I repeat again: still definitely much fairer than the system unsuccessfully proposed by PPC on behalf of the Electoral Commission; or that of the proposal being touted by Senator Ozouf. Isn’t such a workable and moderate compromise worth supporting?

Graphs below illustrate the parity of vote variances relating to the Venice Convention and utilise ‘eligible voters’ format..

 

Original Option B

 

District	Parishes	Eligible voters	Number of States  Members	Voters per D + C	% deviation from average
1	St Helier No. 1	13,960	5.5	2,538	32.19
2	St Helier No. 2	12,900	5.5	2,345	22.14
3	St Clement, Grouville, St Martin	14,010	8	1,751	-8.8
4	St Saviour, Trinity	12,960	7	1,851	-3.56
5	St Lawrence, St John, St Mary, St Ouen	11,100	9	1,233	-35.78
6	St Brelade, St Peter	12,600	7	1,800	-6.25
Total/ average		77,530	42	1,920

 

 

Option B as amended by Senator Ozouf

 

District	Parishes	Eligible voters	Number of States  Members	Voters per D + C	% deviation from average
1	St Helier No. 1	13,960	6.5	2,148	+19.67
2	St Helier No. 2	12,900	6.5	1,985	+10.58
3	St Clement, Grouville, St Martin	14,010	8	1,751	-2.55
4	St Saviour, Trinity	12,960	7	1,851	+3.12
5	St Lawrence, St John, St Mary, St Ouen	11,100	9	1,233	-31.31
6	St Brelade, St Peter	12,600	7	1,800	+0.28
Total/ average		77,530	44	1,795

 

Option B amended by Deputy Pitman

 

District	Parishes	Eligible voters	Number of States  Members	Voters per D + C	% deviation from average
1	St Helier No. 1	13,960	7.5	1,861	+9.28
2	St Helier No. 2	12,900	7.5	1,720	+1
3	St Clement, Grouville, St Martin	14,010	8	1,751	+2.82
4	St Saviour, Trinity	12,960	7	1,851	+8.69
5	St Lawrence, St John, St Mary, St Ouen	11,100	9	1,233	-27.6
6	St Brelade, St Peter	12,600	7	1,800	+5.7
Total/ average		77,530	46	1,703

 

Option B as amended by  Deputy Pitman + taking away 2 Deputies from District 5

 

District	Parishes	Eligible voters	Number of States  Members	Voters per D + C	% deviation from average
1	St Helier No. 1	13,960	7.5	1,861	+5.62
2	St Helier No. 2	12,900	7.5	1,720	-2.38
3	St Clement, Grouville, St Martin	14,010	8	1,751	-0.62
4	St Saviour, Trinity	12,960	7	1,851	+5.05
5	St Lawrence, St John, St Mary, St Ouen	11,100	7	1,586	-9.99
6	St Brelade, St Peter	12,600	7	1,800	+2.16
Total/ average		77,530	44	1,762

 

Financial and manpower implications  

There are no financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition seen against the present situation of 51 Members – the amendment actually leading to a reduction in costs of some £230,000.