THE HYPOCRISY OF THE JEP - ATTEMPT TO GAG US ON REVEALING THE FAILINGS OF PAEDOPHILE PROTECTING JURAT AT THE CENTRE OF OUR APPEAL!

They say that a week is a long time in politics. Yet what a difference a week appears to make to the selective memories of those behind Jersey's Establishment mouthpiece the Jersey Evening Post! After all, it was only a few short days ago that we had had to seek a costly temporary injunction due to the newspaper's plans to again smear us by falsely linking Shona and myself with the now infamous bogus 'threatening letter' scam.

 

Of course, even though new editor-designate Andy Sibcy had to back down on this quite heinous lie as a consequence of the judges' words the Main Stream Media still ran a story that gave a wholly misleading and deliberately negative spin on the truth to the Jersey public.

 

Indeed, not only were we falsely accused by the JEP of trying to stifle 'free speech' because we had stood up to these threats of yet another smear; but being fully aware of the truth due to the presence of their journalist Leah Ferguson at the injunction hearing, Channel Television (ITV) still told their viewers that the bogus letter 'threat' was linked to us!  Incidentally, the Director, Karen Rankine is, of course, very good friends of a number of Establishment Ministers, though we are sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with her company refusing to tell their viewers the truth.

 

OK so such behaviour by the Island's MSM is no surprise to anyone who follows local politics closely. Indeed, it is a prime reason why more and more local people are abandoning them for Citizens' Media blogs who tell people the truths the Establishment want covered up.

 

Nevertheless, given that all of this revolves around a court case which the Establishment hope to manipulate to force us out of politics because we refuse to be silenced on matters such as child abuse and judicial corruption; if the MSM really wish to protest their impartiality and fairness then I wonder how they will now report this? 

 

The JEP want to prevent you the public from knowing the truth about a Jurat happy to look the other way on evidence of the most serious nature!

 

Yes indeed, the Jersey Evening Post being a veritable bastion of truth seekers (or so you would imagine after last week's sermonising) have just attempted via their lawyers - in a submission to the Appeal Court judges actually kept secret from us in clear contempt for legal protocol - to prevent the damning evidence against Jurat John Le Breton contained within the Sharp Report from being made available to the Appeal Court in our application to be heard in the week of November 25th.

 

Evidence that would then become available to you and thus allow the public to finally know what the appeal is truly about. Evidence that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that ANY court in which John Le Breton sat could never be regarded as safe let alone Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights compliant. Why?

 

Because this independent and long-suppressed report reveals a man who was allowed to be put forward - and consequently sit - as a Jurat for 14 years even though it was known by the those at the apex of the Jersey judiciary that he could not be relied upon to fulfil the one sacred duty at the very core of a Jurat's role:

 

TO FULLY CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE REACHING A DECISION ON FACT!

 

Indeed, regardless of all the other overwhelming evidence in support of our contention that the findings of Jurat John Le Breton and his inexperienced colleague Sylvia Milner were without merit, the evidence laid out about Le Breton's failings within the Sharp Report render the whole court process untenable in itself. Yet guess what? Those pillars of justice and transparency at the Jersey Evening Post have secretly attempted to argue through their lawyers that Le Breton's openness to 'looking the other way' on evidence against certain parties - no matter how serious - are...'irrelevant'!

 

No - you didn't read that wrong. 'IRRELEVANT'!

 

So (and I make no apologies for repeating any of this again) let's just have a quick re-cap on just what the Sharp Report reveals about the cover-up of the sickening child abuse of Andrew Jervis-Dykes at Victoria College; and what his friend and colleague, John Le Breton did and didn't do in response. Indeed, a re-cap on what the Jersey Evening Post and its lawyers do not want the court to be able to consider nor you to even know should it damage their hopes of benefiting from the original court's failings....

 

Over a period of many years Jervis-Dykes manipulated off-island boat trips where Jervis-Dykes would ensure he was the only adult member of staff. The College knew about this but did nothing. The consequence? Jervis-Dykes was free to ply young boys with large amounts of alcohol in order that he could then wait until darkness and sexually abuse them. His speciality was both masturbating and performing forced oral sex on children. He even liked to video this abuse!

 

What did John Le Breton do, when all of this sickening abuse over many years finally began to hit the buffers after years of the College deliberately keeping a lid on the events?

 

As far back as in 1992 Sharp reveals, along with the College Headmaster, he is seen to have been quite willing to flout all child protection guidelines in not contacting the Police and Education/Children's Service authorities following complaints from two pupils of abuse. Instead, participating in what can only be described as a humiliating and wholly inappropriate ad-hoc 'internal inquiry'. And this was not the only failing by a long way. 

 

 

Yet now, faced with the abuse finally about to become public, even when asked by the Headmaster to examine video evidence against his friend and colleague, John Le Breton instead refused to look at the evidence. Yes - he REFUSED! Even worse perhaps he incredibly then even went on to argue in the paedophile's defence. His argument in support of the paedophile included truly incredible contentions that:

 

• 'he had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way'
 
• 'that there may be no case to answer'
 
• that if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to do so  'with some dignity'
 
• that without a Police prosecution any resignation could be seen as a consequence of 'an unsubstantiated allegation.'
 
• that even if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should be allowed to continue teaching pupils as Head of Maths as this 'would not place anyone at risk'
 

Yet the JEP and their lawyers want all of this to be seen as 'irrelevant' and kept out of both the court's considerations and public knowledge

 

All whilst they continue to seek to force us out of politics and financially ruin us. For let readers be in no doubt of the duplicity here. Whilst spouting nonsense about such failures within the judicial process being 'irrelevant', the JEP through their lawyers Collas Crill have already sought a Viscounts order to seize our possessions. We will also of course be forced from our home - and perhaps most central to the motivation behind all of this - consequently forced out of being able to represent our constituents by losing our seats under the States of Jersey (2005) law.  All of this in the event of losing our Appeal as a consequence of this travesty.

 

Oh yes, the hypocrisy of the Jersey Evening Post in regard to attempting to both stifle 'free speech' and keeping crucial evidence from both court and the Island's people appear to know neither shame nor limit. Remember analysing evidence is at the very heart of what a Jurat is entrusted by the court to do. It cannot be said to be 'irrelevant' under any circumstance.

 

It is what the public - and most certainly those directly involved in any court process - MUST be able to entrust a Jurat to do. Yet for Jurat John Le Breton as we can see - and it really does not matter at all whether through misguided loyalties; incompetence or simple lack of integrity - this fundamental commitment to evidence clearly is not there.

 

I thus put it to readers of the Bald Truth Jersey bluntly. When one considers this claim of 'irrelevance' from the Island's only newspaper; and indeed, the possibility that a court would let the findings of such a deeply unreliable individual stand, does anyone really wonder why decade upon decade of institutional child abuse has been allowed to go on unchecked?

 

For perhaps a very good 'snapshot judgement' upon whether anything within the now infamous so-called 'Jersey Way' that allowed all of the child abuse to happen down the years has changed, will simply be to see how many of our MSM (Mainstream Media) now report this attempt at stifling the truth and evidence I reveal and do so fairly. I for one must say I will not be holding my breath.

 

Keep the Faith

 

 

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE MISSING SUBMISSION TO THE JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE....

 

I publish below the submission I made to the UK Justice Select Committee following their visit to Jersey back in July 2013.

As readers will recall the Chief Minister's department went to extraordinary lengths to try and ensure that those States Members who actually both knew what skulduggery was going on within our so-called 'justice'system; and crucially were also willing to stand up and tell the truth about it didn't get to spill the beans. All of course why the self-proclaimed 'Great and the Good' of the Establishment  Party were enjoying a thousand-odd pound jollie at the Atlantic Hotel and all at taxpayers' expense. 

Nevertheless, following what had been an attempt to later stage-manage a brief official meeting with the Committee - a meeting to which only 17 of your 51 representatives cared enough about justice to even turn up - having been pressured by Deputy Shona Pitman it was agreed by the Chairman that the deadline for anyone else wishing to make a submission to the Committee to tell things exactly how they are rather than the spin of the Atlantic Hotel shindig would be extended.

Any such submissions would then, we were assured, be posted on the Committee's government website. Indeed, we were told that individuals must NOT make their own submissions public until this simple process was complete.

Like a number of other deeply concerned individuals I did just this.Yet what happened? Three months on not one of the submissions has ever appeared on the website as we were promised. Why I ask? Perhaps the true reasons why anyone who dares rock the Establishment boat in Jersey can never then hope to achieve justice suddenly becomes a whole lot clearer...

Submission from Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman

My name is Trevor Mark Pitman. I am Jessey born and a Deputy representing St Helier Districts No. 1 in the Jersey States Assembly, the Island’s Parliament. I was first elected to the States in 2008 and re-elected in 2011. All mandates are for a three year term of office; though this set to rise to four years.

Directly prior to entering politics I was a professional youth worker within the Jersey Youth Service (this being a part of the Island’s Education, Sport & Culture department); my university qualification in this regard being in Informal Education/Youth & Community Development.

At the time of my initial election to the States I was the Chairman of the Island’s first officially registered political party (now defunct) the Jersey Democratic Alliance (JDA). A movement founded on the principles of social democracy; this had been set up to try and bring some degree of transparency and policy accountability to the local political scene.

As is the case with a number of my colleagues the purpose of my submission is to draw to the Committee’s attention my serious concerns about various aspects of the governance of Jersey and in particular what can only be described as abuses (both corruption and lack of the necessary diligence) within the Criminal Justice and Legal Systems; the lack of appropriate separation of powers between the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive; and the recent Referendum on the Structure of Government.

The reality is that, as has already been highlighted by one of my colleagues, Deputy Mike Higgins 3,000 words is wholly inadequate to fully elaborate on the above matters to the degree needed. I would thus simply echo Deputy Higgins’ request that at a later date the Committee consider accepting highly detailed, evidence-based written submissions into these areas. As such I briefly detail below a number of these personal concerns arising from both my own experience as both a politician and a member of the public; similarly others arising from evidence given to me by numerous members of the Jersey public.

Indeed, though a highly stressful and hugely expensive experience it has been the first-hand experience of my wife Shona (also an elected Deputy) and I in being foolish enough to trust to the workings of the Island’s justice system that has enabled me to see clearly a number of the most staggering and disturbing abuses/failings still currently being allowed to ‘run unchecked’ as a consequence of the UK government not intervening to ensure ‘good governance’.

The reality underlying this experience being that, though thoroughly evidenced as failures in both adhering to rules on conflict of interest and in monitoring of the local Jurat (lay judge) system was, with the UK government’s failure to intervene we were left being passed back from the UK Justice Minister to appeal to the very offices whose lack of professionalism had let us down. As we were subsequently to learn – we are very much not alone in being subjected to such abuses of justice.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, however, is the reality that most of these abuses/failings appear to have gone on for many, many decades. Again, I make no apology for reiterating the view that these abuses and deeply entrenched institutional failings have been allowed to come about because of a failure by Westminster to adequately monitor what has been happening within one of its own Crown Dependencies.

Correcting this ‘blind eye’/non-interventionist approach is, an ever-increasing number of islanders believe, the only way these abuses and failings will be halted and true justice and good governance restored. I thus list below just some of the incidents/issues causing me grave concern as a Member of the island’s parliament.                                                       

1. The loss of evidence from police custody relating to child abuse (Haut de la Garenne) and which is also highly relevant to the States Compensation Scheme for the victims of abuse;

2. Failure to prosecute highly wealthy ‘Establishment’ figures in the Royal Court despite clear and solid evidence of child abuse;

3. The collusion of civil servants and politicians to remove a Minister, former Senator Stuart Syvret, from Office during the ‘Historic’ Child abuse investigation revolving around Haut de la Garenne; this being revealed by a former Chief of Police, Graham Power QPM;

4. The consequent rapid, and in the view of many of us, illegal removal of the very same former Chief of Police soon afterward; this being followed by an orchestrated and falsified ‘trashing’ of both the individual, his recently retired Deputy and the investigation;

5. An in my view illegal police raid on the home of the same former Senator highlighted above and his then partner;

5. The failure of the UK to intervene to dismiss a former Attorney General – subsequently Bailiff and now a Senator for allowing a convicted paedophile, Roger Holland, to be sworn into the Honorary Police – this leading to the paedophile abusing more young girls;

6. Failure on the part of two successive Bailiffs to appropriately scrutinise and remove – over a period of 14 years – an individual sitting as a Jurat – John Le Breton, who is highlighted (within the government suppressed 1999 Stephen Sharp Report) to have refused to look at/consider evidence against a paedophile colleague, Andrew Jervis-Dykes. Yet then written in support of him; stating amongst other comments that the paedophile ‘had served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way’; and that there ‘may be no case to answer’.

7. Failure by the Bailiff’s Office to ensure the same Jurat recused himself, as required, from sitting and judging on evidence/fact in a defamation case where the Jurat has a long-standing and evidenced relationship - both personal and working - with a director of one of the defendant companies;

8. The failure to ensure that all trials are compliant with Article 6 of the European Court of Human Rights

9. The failure of the States of Jersey Police to properly investigate allegations of perjury by Civil Servants in a Court of Law, especially when it has been alleged that some of their former colleagues were involved;

10. The failure of the States of Jersey Police to properly investigate or even refuse to accept complaints of perversion of the course of justice and other unlawful activities: both by serving officers and individuals within the legal profession;

11. The working of the Island’s legal aid system which means that ordinary citizens lacking the necessary ‘deep pockets’ have almost no chance of getting any justice in the legal system; regardless of the strength of their case;

12. Abuse of the Data Protection Law to implement what I can only describe as politically motivated ‘secret court’ proceedings;

13. Shocking and inexplicable inconsistency within sentencing for child abuse offences;

14. The failure of the Crown Dependencies ‘Team’ to appropriately consider and act upon complaints of criminal acts/abuses of the Jersey justice system; instead referring them back mass produced ‘template’ letter to be dealt with/appealed via the same individuals/institutions that have allowed the problems to occur

15. The lack of an individual’s right in Jersey to take out a private criminal prosecution;

16. Allegations of tampering with trial recordings within the Magistrates’ Court prior to said recording being sent for transcription;

17. The refusal of the UK to intervene to put an end to the ‘Dual Role’ of the Bailiff which allows one individual to preside as both Head of the Judiciary and Legislature; a system far worse in ECHRs failings than the system now being addressed in Sark;

18. A wholly unwarranted and divisive monopoly to practise allowed to exist for ‘Jersey lawyers’; this being the key factor in the extortionate rates such lawyers are allowed to charge – thus limiting justice to the wealthy and excluding most who may be termed ‘middle earners’;

19. The refusal of Jersey courts to ensure litigants in person are provided with copies of the law (relevant to their case) in language that they can understand;

20. The failure of the Data Protection Commissioner’s Office to properly assist members of the public who file subject access complaints to the States of Jersey Police in order to pursue cases against the Police - when they are being actively obstructed by the police;  

In concluding this brief submission I repeat that I sincerely hope the Committee will be willing to accept further, detailed written submissions at a later date; and similarly will be willing to hear oral evidence from those with the concerns – regardless of some us being tagged ‘anti-Establishment’ figures - rather than the usual Executive members and Civil Servants the UK authorities normally hear from and have contact with.

I fully concur with my colleague, Deputy Mike Higgins, is stating that like others I am turning to the Justice Select Committee for assistance because it is proving impossible to successfully address many of these issues in Jersey and firm external intervention is needed to end the abuses that are occurring in this Island.  None of this may be new – but it is high time the UK played its part in putting an end to such failings and abuses.

Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman


Keep the Faith. No-one in the UK government may be listening yet - but come Hell or high water; in office or forced out - the time is coming when we will MAKE those who should finally HEAR and bring the corrupt and the complacent to book.