JERSEY CHILD ABUSE: NON-PROSECUTION OF ‘GROOMING GANG’ SCANDAL PROVES NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE HAUT DE LA GARENNE

If anyone genuinely wanted proof that ‘the Jersey Way’ in all its sordid indifference to protecting children still ensures the safety of vulnerable minors comes a very distant second to promoting a bogus, squeaky clean image for potential international finance business then the revelations about how a grooming gang were let off the hook because ‘no one would give evidence’ surely provides it in spades. Quite frankly the excuses being offered, and just as horrifying, the fact it was all hushed up by the authorities is simply stomach-churning. 

Really, as one of the tiny band of States Members, both past and present, who fought the five year battle to secure the Committee of Inquiry - not to mention having personally led the Scrutiny review which finally exposed the deliberate trashing of Operation Rectangle by Jersey’s MSM - even I find myself asking ‘Just what the hell does it take to wake up so many people in this island to how upside down our Establishment’s values are even in the second decade of the 21st Century? 

Indeed, as a fellow blogger rightly commented it seems hitting ‘middle Jersey’ in the pocket with a small hike in school fees will get those parents out in convoy to protest. Yet tell them our kids are quite likely to be groomed, explicitly videoed or even buggered will barely raise an eyebrow! Have we really learnt so little from the predatory abuse of Roger Holland, Andrew Jervis-Dykes and their ilk; and the ‘look the other way’ attitude of the Bailhaches and disgraced Jurat John Lyndon Le Breton et al? 

Of course the true 6 million dollar question – and the one which really must not be overlooked here – in pushing for some accountability for this latest outrage is this: just who decided that this gang of young men should not be prosecuted? Was it ‘I’ll police in any way the Establishment tell me to’ Chief Mike’ Bowron? (Yes, he really did say that to a Scrutiny panel.) Or was it Attorney General Tim Le Cocq – perhaps trying to keep up the ‘Jersey Way’ tradition of his two Bailhache predecessors? Whatever the answer the culprit really has to be sacked. Yet he won’t be and the very fact we all know this surely only compounds the despair. 

What these events also remind us for the umpteenth time is that here in Establishment Jersey the law and whether or not it is enforced depends entirely , 100% upon who you are and what degree of damage might be done to image of the Flying Banana Republic by a prosecution. Equally of course what damage a pursued prosecution could help do to anyone who has dared challenge the Establishment. 

The examples of this are legion but if in any doubt just think Article 39A and William Bailhaches malicious prosecutions of ‘progressives’ for assisting disabled/elderly people to register a postal vote application; whilst leaving Establishment candidates who breached the same farcical law untouched. 

Just think Data Protection Law ‘breaches’ and the hugely expensive show trial prosecution of Stuart Syvret; whilst email thief and hate site publication enabler Deputy Sean Power received only a wrist slap. Why is this all relevant? The answer is really quite simple.do. 

Prior to the Jersey Evening Post’s welcome – if decades overdue and no doubt wholly temporary conversion to uncovering child abuse - I had been asking discreet but persistent questions on this very story following a tip off. 

Okay, so with all else going on in my life; and having recently also learnt that Bowron had been secretly complaining to the Privileges & Procedures Committee to try and prevent me asking any uncomfortable questions about police failings, I wasn’t able on this occasion to progress this or take it forward in the same very public manner I have always believed the island’s people deserved to ensure matters did not simply remain buried in time honoured ‘Jersey Way’ fashion.. 

But the fact is that what was said to be going on with this ‘grooming gang’ case was deeply disturbing. And there were two main reasons for my concern. 

Firstly, I knew for a fact that the ‘no one would give evidence’ to allow a prosecution excuse held about as much water as a string vest. Not only are such decisions never down to the victims alone to have the final say on when set against prosecuting ‘in the public interest’; the fact was that the Jersey Police had the example of a similar - though in my analysis of the facts – far less serious case only some short years ago.. And not only was a prosecution pursued despite similar alleged reluctance but this was done until a conviction was secured. 

Without going into full details of what is a case on public record if one wants to research, I was contacted by an involved party, with concerns about the media portrayal of how what was claimed to have been an immature male in his late teens had become involved in a scenario bearing some striking similarities to this latest scandal. In this case younger and underage females were also being provided with alcohol and cigarettes purchased at their request by the male in exchange for the promise of girls then displaying their bodies via a webcam link. 

Of course whilst it can be no excuse for the young man in this case both his stated immaturity and the alleged fact that the girls promises made to him to ensure he purchased the requested alcohol more often turned out to be nothing more than a lever they can be said to be relevant mitigating factors. Yet the fact remains that the teenage male was of course rightly prosecuted. So why then it must be asked – with according to my information – no such mitigating circumstances involved was an organised group of alleged ‘groomers’ not also pursued through the court in the same way? 

The answer I suggest may possibly lie in the second concern I talked of. This was the allegation made to me that one of the young men in this latest case had a family and educational background which may have caused significant embarrassment to Jersey’s Establishment should any public prosecution have eventually transpired. Can I confirm this to be 100% accurate? No now being out of politics I cannot. Yet as the information about the grooming gangs activities have proved to be on the money these concerns are surely ones which our Chief of Police and Attorney General need to address to Jersey’s wider community as a matter of urgency. 

If they do not then the Establishment’s usual denials about the ‘Jersey Way’ ensuring law is only applied here according to who a person is will continue to ring as hollowly as they have always done. Yet who knows…with Shona and I no longer being in the States Chamber as we tread the road toward Strasbourg for legal abuses tied to this very same ‘Jersey Way’ perhaps there is still another States Member brave enough to ask the questions this latest scandal so obviously demands…. 

Perhaps we had better listen out next Tuesday? Keep the Faith.

HOW THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT SILENCES THOSE WHO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON CHILD ABUSE AND INJUSTICE. AN EXCELLENT PIECE FROM BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH'S MARK METCALF

The article I adapt below is the copyright of and kindly made available by the excellent UK magazine 'Big Issue in The North' and Mark Metcalf. I will attach a direct link to the magazine as soon as have it - assuming I still have IT access after our latest court battle at 10am Tuesday morning 26th November!

 

Meanwhile, thanks once again to Mark and his editor Kevin for regularly keeping an eye on the on-going struggle to drag Jersey democracy and its 'judicial' system into the 21st Century.With further UK coverage on the Jersey 'justice' system and our own battle coming up shortly Keep the Faith that one day the Bald Truth about the cover-ups will shine through!

 

Deputy Trevor Pitman 

 

‘Gagging’ claims as Jersey court case gets under way

 

An MP fears the victims of child abuse on Jersey will be “gagged” if the establishment on the island is successful in bankrupting and disqualifying from office two local members of parliament.  

Shona Pitman and her husband Trevor have represented the St Helier parish since 2005 and 2008 respectively. Both have expressed their concerns about child abuse on many occasions. Jersey’s child abuse scandal first surfaced in 2007, following which 192 victims and 151 abusers were identified during a police investigation. Seven people were successfully prosecuted.

 

An inquiry into child abuse on the island was due to have started this autumn but had to be delayed due to the overseeing judge suffering a heart attack. Visits by Jimmy Savile to a children’s home on Jersey will form part of the inquiry. The Pitmans believe the island’s Law Office has not pursued evidence against abusers. They have attempted, with backing from other parliamentary members and campaigners against child abuse, to get justice minister Lord McNally to “ensure good governance”.

Damages  

This drew a muted response from the Lib Dem peer who replied: “Jersey has its own justice system so we can’t really interfere.” The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, who is head of the Privy Council – which acts as a court of appeal for Jersey – has also refused to get involved.

 

Last year, the couple sought damages for defamation against the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and the Broadlands estate agency, which placed a cartoon advert in the paper in 2008. The Pitmans alleged this was intended to portray them as money-grabbers who had entered politics for personal gain.

 

John Lyndon Le Breton, the senior jurat in the case, was a friend of the newspaper’s (owning company) director and vice-principal of an exclusive fee-paying secondary school where, for indecently assaulting teenagers, paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes was given a four-year sentence in 1999. Colleagues of the guilty man refused to co-operate with the police and Le Breton wrote in support of him.

 

Le Breton subsequently sat on other child abuse cases but has since retired. The Pitmans lost their case after the defendants successfully argued the cartoon referred to the fact that the plaintiffs would be able to obtain a mortgage worth four times their joint salaries.  

Defamation  

The Jersey parliamentarians were left owing around a quarter of a million pounds in costs to their lawyers and the two defendants. This week the Pitmans will appear before the Jersey Appeal Court in an attempt to overturn an earlier decision that they have exhausted the time period in which they can appeal against the defamation decision.

 

They are representing themselves and need to win or face being declared bankrupt. Unlike in Britain, this will mean they are disqualified from elected office. Their home and jobs would be lost. The Pitmans argue: “The establishment and JEP want us to be forced out of politics.”  

Earlier this month, the Pitmans unsuccessfully sought an injunction to prevent the JEP publishing a story about threatening letters that had been sent to the lawyers for the JEP and Broadlands, as well as a prominent individual in the original defamation case and the Jersey politician Sean Power, who has previously criticised the Pitmans in the JEP.

 

The Pitmans accused the JEP of “yet another smear” and argued the letters had been sent to undermine them in the lead-up to their appeal. The newspaper; deputy editor, Andy Sibcy, has refused to comment on the Pitmans’ accusations or their claim that the letters had nothing to do with them. The incident has led to no police arrests.  

Abuse allegations  

Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming has taken a keen interest in events on Jersey and it was his intervention that helped remove the 500-day ban on American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from visiting the island and investigating child abuse allegations.

 

Hemming has recently supported Stuart Syvret, Jersey’s former health minister, who was jailed for contempt of court after he refused to remove online allegations about four islanders. The Data Protection Commissioner brought the case against Syvret. None of the four has attempted to sue the former politician for defamation. Hemming has named the four individuals in an early day motion in Parliament and called Syvret’s jailing “an affront to freedom of speech”.  

This is the second time Syvret has gone to jail. In 2010 he published a confidential report into suspicious deaths at Jersey’s General Hospital. In both case cases, Syvret has argued there has been a “cover-up”.

Hemming has now expressed his “fears that the establishment in Jersey are using legal proceedings to disqualify the Pitmans from their role in the island’s parliament”. He added: “This has the effect of gagging victims of abuse as fewer people can speak out on their behalf. I very much hope they are successful in their appeal.”

                                                                                                                                                                         MARK METCALF

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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!

 

 

SNAPSHOTS FROM JERSEY - THE ROYSTON VASEY OF GLOBAL POLITICS

   

This is a 'local' democracy...

One of my old University lecturers absolutely loved the old saying that suggests - on occasions - 'less' really can be 'more'. Whilst reflecting upon what single topic I might post about this week; and being pushed for time between a raft of new constituent and corruption cases the truth of this really came home to me for some reason.

 

Of course it would be very easy and quite justified to write a lengthy, detailed post on any one of a half-a-dozen issues that have come to the fore in Jersey politics this past couple of weeks. Yet given the gravity of what some of these happenings reveal, why I thought, not instead just flag up the 'basics' of two or three in a few paragraphs on each for discussion?

 

After all, if the reader can't grasp the seriousness of all of these headings from considering just the fundamental basics of the problems then our island, you have to conclude, may well be beyond saving. Do we want to have things like justice, democracy, transparancy and genuine community as central to our way of life? Or do we just want to be the equivalent of a mad, black comedy where the only thing that matters is keeping the rich powerful and the poor powerless?

The choice as they say is yours. For if you don't DO politics, then politics in the shape of the Jersey Establishment will DO you...

 

Bailhache-Gate. Or liar, liar your pants are on fire? 

 

Now this issue all arose from my daring to bring States questions on serious concerns raised by a member of the public who stated he had been able to see damning confidential documents (revealing both the identity of HG in the Dean suspension case, and her alleged abuser). All of these being allegedly carelessly read in public by Assistant Minister with responsibility for External Relations, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache during a flight from Gatwick on March 21st.

 

As I have said, the details provided by this member of the public in contacting me revealed - beyond any question - details that are not in the public domain and could not have been faked. Yet how did Senator Bailhache respond? Was there an explanation; an apology? No. The claims were 'fictitious' and 'malicious'; the document containing them being described as 'purporting' to be an e-mail from a member of the public. In essence both this gentleman and yours truly were, by extension, liars. Ah..the 'Man who would be King' or at least El Presidente: how dare we mere mortals; we peasants question HIM? It was all a wicked Lefty plot it seems.

But... unfortunately, for both the Senator, Chief Minister Gorst and the MSM who failed to do any investigative journalism on the story whatsoever - it ISN'T. The gentleman, a successful businessman, has thus quite understandably become so disgusted and outraged by the Senator's reaction that he has now written to Chief Minister Gorst giving...even more details of this 'fictitious' event. And guess what else? The whole episode can also all be verified by the man's business partner who was travelling with him. They have even offered to meet with the Chief Minister accompanied by yours truly.

 

Misleading the States? Testicular Fortitude required I fancy. and a large dose at that. But has our Chief Minister actually got any... 

 

The alternative 'Jersey Way' reality unfolding in Court No.2... 

 

Now I spent this Tuesday morning in court again - and just for a change it didn't have anything - directly - to do with me!

That's right: I wasn't challenging a 'justice' system that had allowed former Jurat John Le Breton to sit on our defamation case against the JEP and the estate agent Broadlands even though he is an evidenced long-standing friend of one of the paper's directors. Not to mention being a man who was allowed to become a Jurat even though proven in the Sharp Report to be quite happy to look the other way on evidence against a friend and colleague who was a predatory paedophile!

Nor was I finding myself in Petty Debts Court because of holding to the ever-so-silly principle that an contract built on fairness wasn't being applied that way! No. I was there simply because of a quite unbelievable, indeed, bizarre example of the 'Jersey Way'. This being a truly staggering case that had seen a good, decent and hardworking local businessman Mr. Martin Kane not only ARRESTED but having to report DAILY to the police station - all because of an alleged breach of a Planning regulation/by-law! 

I really am not making this bizarre case up I assure you. Its true. And, though I make no claim to be an expert in the area, like others who have also now examined the case, I have to say that in my view the pursuit of this individual and his company is the biggest waste of taxpayers' money since... a cowardly, abusive, convicted petty  thug was given our money to take one of the people he himself was abusing to court!

 

Believe me, I would love to say more on this astounding 'court case'. But I won't just now. For without the full details as yet being in the public domain you would probably end up thinking I was just pitching a script for a fantasy film. A 'malicious' prosecution as is being claimed; or just a misguided mess that never should have happened? What certainly can be said even at this stage is the complex web by which it is all being held together to progress just this far goes right to the heart of 'the Jersey Way'...

And one other thing is also certain: it will all cost we the taxpayers an absolute fortune. 

 

BBC Jersey ask: should 'backbenchers' not willing to spout Establishment propaganda be allowed to talk to foreigners...

This truly bonkers issue was incredibly given the bulk of the Beeb's Politics Show recently and arose from that naughty Lefty troublemaker Deputy Montfort Fawkes - sorry, Montfort Tadier giving an interview to the French newspaper Le Parisian. His 'offence'? He didn't have permission from the Establishment Party Fueher Bunker; and he didn't espouse the party line that 'Off-Shore' (or tax havens - you take your pick) must be viewed through rose-tinted spectacles.

Now enough has been said about the damning attitude of arrogance and contempt for differing views that the swivel-eyed reaction of the Treasury Minister and Finance industry 'big-wigs' has revealed here. The angle I want to put up for discussion is just what such a reaction from within our MSM tells us? I mean, can the local BBC really believe that it is in any way compatible with a modern democracy that elected representatives of the public should not be free to speak to international journalists unless they adhere to the majority party whip on tax evasion/avoidence?

Frankly it is both embarrassing and a damning indictment of the mainstream - or State - media itself. The Bald Truth is that such a debate would be laughed out of the boardroom in just about any other jurisdiction in the world - no matter which political philosophy held the majority. It wouldn't even matter if the Deputy's views were right or wrong. true democracy guarantees his right to hold and voice them.

OK. The head-in-the-sand approach might be comforting for the MSM, the Finance industry and even our Neo-Liberal politicians alike I accept. But the cold, hard truth of the matter is that the sun is setting on the view that tax 'dodging' by big business and the super-wealthy is socially acceptable. To contend otherwise is akin to King Canute commanding the tide not to come in and drown him. The sooner the Establishment - both politicians and MSM apologists - wise up to this truth the sooner economic diversification can become more than just pre-election buzz word.

Saying sorry but really not meaning it: part 98...

Meanwhile, isn't is strange how having been exposed by me yet again as a regular purveyor of pathetic and malicious 'anti-Leftist' fake letters the Jersey Evening Pravda have still got the offending missive attacking Montfort Tadier up on their website. Complete of course, with scores of similarly fake comments using avatars of one Mad Jon the Cyber-rash - exponent of drunken death threats and scavenger of takeaway dustbins. All doing exactly, of course, what these fake letters are meant to achieve: trying to negatively mislead wider public perception...

And the moral of this post?

If the above 'snapshots' above conjure up the type of Jersey you want to live in then keep voting for the Establishment. But if such a 'democracy' is really not what you want then let me say quite bluntly here: you had better make sure you aren't one of the apathetics who just sit on their butt and moan. Doing nothing is as sure a way of ensuring this attitude to democracy continues as is putting your 'x' next to the name of an Establishment candidate on an election ballot paper. In fact it is precisely what their bullying, lies and manipulation hopes to achieve...

Keep the Faith

Trevor

 

JERSEY & THE ABUSE OF JUSTICE: WHEN WILL THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR FINALLY REIN IN THE COWBOYS?

'Jersey's legal system is, in its entirety, fundamentally incompatible with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom ('the Convention'). The attitude of Jersey's authorities, in relation to the non-compliance in the Island with the Convention is one of calculated defiance'.

JERSEY - THE ISLAND  DEMOCRACY & JUSTICE FORGOT...

Powerful words indeed; damning words. Just me again - that bolshie, anti-Establishment rebel rouser taking another shot at Jersey's  powerful elite? Well, no actually. The above quotation is from one of Jersey's finest lawyers: certainly the best and most courageous practising today.

His name is Advocate Philip Sinel. And his words, taken from his submission to the Carswell Inquiry, are 'bang on the money'. I know - with my wife, Deputy Shona Pitman I have experienced both barrels from a system that would be a disgrace to a developing country; let alone one of the half-dozen most affluent jurisdictions on earth.

Justice is meant to be for all within a community, isn't it. Yet in Jersey this just isn't the case. For within a jurisdiction both wholly captured by finance, and long hijacked by a morally bankrupt, clique of individuals with far more more money than ability 'justice' has nothing to do with right and wrong anymore: it is all about manipulating and maintaining power.

Those ordinary people who dare 'rock the Establishment boat' will find the 'justice' system turned on them until they are either silenced, join the club, or are utterly crushed. Of course, these people should be able to turn to the UK Ministry of Justice to protect them from such abuses. The only trouble is the Ministry of Justice evidently couldn't give a damn. It could intervene. It SHOULD intervene. But it doesn't. And so it allows the abuses of process to go on: go on as they have for decade upon decade.

Over the next month or so Deputy Mike Higgins and myself - possibly Deputy Montfort Tadier too - will be endeavouring to collate a catalogue of appalling and hugely diverse cases that show just how out of control Jersey 'justice' is. We then intend to put these to the Lieutenant-Governor.

More about all of this nearer the time. But for now let me just offer a further instalment of my own experience of how even those with the comparative platform of a political voice can fall victim to the failings - some will say 'machinations' of the Jersey Law Office...

JERSEY MIGHT BE SMALL BUT THAT IS NO EXCUSE TO BLATANTLY FLOUT ARTICLE 6 OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS...

Let's just consider the comparatively straight-forward issue of the essentiality of avoiding Conflicts of Interest when judges and jurats are sitting on court cases i.e. ensuring that no one rules or decides on evidence in a case where they may, or may even be perceived to have a relationship with either plaintiff or defendant. The fundamental importance and clarity of this concept has never been better summed up then by the late and legendary Lord Denning.

"The court does not look at the mind of justice itself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other.

The Court looks at the impression that would be given to other people. Even if he was impartial as could be, nevertheless, if the right minded-persons would think that, in the circumstances there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does so, then, his decision cannot stand..."

All very straight-forward. Yet in Jersey as we were to discover - at best applied only inconsistently; at worst completely ignored. Indeed, our case for defamation against the Jersey Evening Post and the estate agent Broadlands highlight both perfectly.

On the one hand the Bailiff' and Deputy Bailiff 'recused' themselves from presiding over our case simply because of our political 'relationship'. As I have said before - all well and good though the fact is I would not partake of diner with either man if they were the last individuals on earth.

Yet when we came to jurats - and remember only TWO sat on our case with the Jersey syetm denying us an independent jury of ordinary people - having the most crucial role of actually deciding on evidence and fact the senior of the two jurats, John Le Breton failed to recuse himself despite clearly being conflicted beyond all argument.

He had been a personal friend of a senior director of one of the defendants for many years.

Jurat Le Breton socialised with the defendant's director. He even went to diner at the director's home and the director his. He was also even a close personal friend of the director's spouse. And he also knew full well that his friend was a director of this defendant in the case.

All of this is evidenced. The Jurat should have revealed all of this as is required of all judges and jurats, and if not automatically recusing himself voluntarily then be prevented from sitting by the Bailiff's Office. But neither happened. There  are no ifs or buts about this. It is fact.

Sickening enough in itself then. Yet when all of this finally came to light after the court case had finished incredibly both Jurat Le Breton and the Bailiff's Office both tried to play the seriousness of it all down. As they still do to this day. They even try to paint it as acceptable because Jersey is 'small' in size. The question that immediately raises itself in consequence simply has to be: why?

If mistakes are made - and let's be quite clear here we all make them at times - then immediately they are brought to ones attention you put them right. Though such an incredibly lax approach to justice could never really be excused given all of the stress and strain involved it could at lest be accepted once put right.

When such glaring travesties of justice are met with only arrogance and denial, however, the conclusion can only be that the motive for what happened to us - and has no doubt happened to unknown others - can only be suspected to be a whole lot more sinister. Are Shona and I alone in this view? Is it just 'sour grapes'?

Well, the Jersey Evening Post certainly may well want to try and convince its readers of that - after all they have consistently refused to let us tell the true facts. They even edited this rather significant and hugely telling FACT our of the press release article they published (we wonder why?) But alone in our identification of a clear and wholly unacceptable conflict of interest - one that completely renders the decision of the jurats unsafe - we are not.

And to this regard I reproduce a copy of the main letter of support given to the Justice Minister (in tandem with a second letter from us) signed by a sample cross-section of prominent Islanders just as horrified as we ourselves. Including political figures past and present to the 2 x Senators; 6 x Deputies and 1 x Constable who felt compelled to co-sign the below letter or write their own Shona and I again say a heartfelt 'thank you'. Just as we do to our fellow campaigners for justice who also signed in support*.

Your solidarity and recognition that such abuses of justice as outlaid above cannot be allowed to go unchecked a moment longer give us strength. Those who are happy to abuse the legal process may destroy us - indeed they are working flat out to do so. But they will never, ever be able to alter the fact that their actions are as reprehensible as they are incompatible with a democracy.

Eventually justice WILL prevail - both for us and for all the other wronged ordinary working people beginning to come forward. Wouldn't it be great if the Island's Representative of the Queen - the Lieutenant-Governor would now step up to the plate and play his part in doing what is right and just too...

Keep the Faith

Trevor

Letter to the UK Justice Minister

6th December 2012

Reference: Shona & Trevor Pitman’s court case

Dear Lord McNally

We write to you as both current and former Members of the States of Jersey Assembly; and, indeed a small number of ordinary members of the community to express our deep concern as to the flawed application of justice within the case of Deputies Shona and Trevor Pitman; heard by the Royal Court in April of this year.

The full details of Mr and Mrs Pitman’s concerns, both in regard to their own case and of a wider nature, are outlined at considerable depth within their own letter. There are indeed in our view many aspects of our island’s justice system, especially within the Jurat system, that need modifying in terms of adequate checks and balances. This being so, we nevertheless believe it sufficient here to state the following relating specifically to the Pitman’s case.

All individuals are entitled to a fair and just trial process; free of all and any perception of possible bias or conflict of interest. Just as both Judges and Jurats should not have any serious questions as to their past judgement or commitment to justice. It is apparent to all of us, however, that given the evidence relating to the Sharp Report into child abuse at Jersey’s Victoria College highlighted by Mr and Mrs Pitman in their letter, there are clearly such question marks relating to the senior Jurat in their case.

A further key aspect of ensuring a fair and just trial, must obviously also be that neither a Judge nor a Jurat should be able to sit on a case if he or she has any demonstrable relationship with any of the parties involved; be this with plaintiff or defendant. Those of us who are, or have been States Members can attest to politicians being very much aware of their obligations as public figures; one of these of course being that such duties are carried out within the realms of public perception.

Yet it is quite apparent from the information laid out by the Pitmans that this crucial process has not been adhered to within the appointment of Jurats to their case. In our collective view, it simply cannot be acceptable or safe that the Jurat in question, Mr John Le Breton, was allowed by the Bailiff’s Office to sit and pass judgement on this case.

It is after all quite clear that the Jurat has a significant relationship over many years - one that has been both working and social - with an individual, who is a long-standing director of a company who own one of the defendants in the case: this being the local newspaper.

In our view, the inappropriateness of this serious conflict of interest is only further amplified by the fact that in stark contrast, both the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff were ruled to be unable to preside on the grounds of their ‘political’ relationship with the plaintiffs. We are all able to confirm that neither Shona nor Trevor Pitman have, or have had, any social or friendship-based relationship with either Crown Officer whatsoever.

The inconsistency of this ruling set against the relationship with a director of the first defendant on the part of the senior Jurat could not we believe be more pronounced. We thus echo Mr and Mrs Pitman’s contention, that this involvement of Jurat Le Breton in their Royal Court case for defamation cannot be regarded as either safe or acceptable.

We further support the belief that such a miscarriage of justice being corrected must have another possible avenue of redress when individuals, any individuals, do not possess the significant wealth necessary to challenge this by means of a standard appeal. Indeed, the whole issue of the Jurat’s actions in refusing to look at evidence outlined with the Sharp Report only strengthen this deep concern.

As such we fully support Mr and Mrs Pitman’s call for a mistrial and request that you intervene as Justice Minister with regard to ruling this court decision as unsafe.

Note

*Along with publishing further correspondence including that from the Bailiff's Office; upon consent from the individuals I hope to also be able to indicate the identity of those who kindly suggested writing and/or signing the letters of support.

Of course, knowing that not all individuals may want to lay themselves as wide open to targeting by the Establishment as I am prepared to do any request for continued anonymity will be fully respected. The important thing was that these good people were willing to stand up with us to be counted in saying to the Justice Minister 'enough is enough' 

We will be forever grateful to them for that.