AN OPEN LETTER TO LORD McNALLY & THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF JERSEY

The shameless manipulation of the 'justice' system as a tool of oppression by the Jersey Establishment continues...

I reproduce below an 'open letter' sent yesterday to both UK Justice Minister, Lord McNally (who has done absolutely nothing about the abuses of justice evident in our case - other than to offer to refer us back to the very Bailiff who had allowed it all to happen) and Her Majesty The Queen's representative here on the island, the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John McColl.

 

It outlines the incredible - and it must be said, deeply disturbing - latest unfoldings of what has been passed off as 'justice' in our case since we we were foolish enough to place our trust in the Jersey judicial system.

 

Indeed, should you be naive or perhaps simply unaware enough to still have even the smallest trace of trust that the Jersey 'justice' system is anything other than a farce; a completely hijacked tool for the Establishment to both avoid the holding to account of those amongst their ranks who merit it; and to try and bury all and any who dare challenge it please simply read this and the attached letter from current Jurat Collette Crill and think again.

 

A fairly long read perhaps, but five minutes of your time well spent. Finally, tempting as it was to deconstruct the shortcomings and attempted re-writing of historical fact within the letter from Jurat Crill readers of the bald Truth Jersey will perhaps understand why I felt this better to leave to others...

 

Keep the Faith                                                             

 

Dear Lord McNally and Lieutenant-Governor 

 

We write to you in the form of this open letter to bring to your attention – in the remote chance that either of you should have any genuine concern for the on-going abuse of the justice system here on Jersey – to highlight the latest episode of the many abuses evident within our attempt to secure justice for ourselves via the courts.  

As you will both be aware due to previous correspondence our present situation arose from us daring to trust that we would be afforded – just like any other person – a fair and ECHR Article 6 compliant court process. Indeed, as is now well documented the reality has been not only that we were instead faced with a Jurat – John Le Breton - who has a proven history of looking the other way on evidence of child abuse against a former friend and colleague; but who also felt quite above accepted global judicial standards to not recuse himself from sitting on our case – even though he is further evidenced to have wined and dined a director of the Jersey Evening Post’s owning company the Guiton Group. 

That all of this was allowed to take place by Jersey’s Bailiff (who we copy in) and has most recently even been rubber-stamped by three Jersey Appeal Court Judges who – quite incredibly – attempted to re-write the findings of the 1999 Stephen Sharp Report into the child abuse cover-up at the island’s Victoria College to claim within their judgement: i.e. that there is apparently nothing in the report which would warrant John Le Breton being viewed as unfit for such a role would suggest that this leaves little more to be said.  

At least until we progress our case to the Privy Council; and more likely, we must accept, if this abuse of justice is so acceptable to those who should be intervening on behalf of the Queen and United Kingdom government, to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Nevertheless, given the latest developments which we now outline below we will have at least placed upon record yet more evidence of the corruption and inexcusable failings evident in our case – just as this is within the cases of so many others. 

As you may or may not already be aware, having been brought to bankruptcy by our pursuit of justice; following on from the Appeal Court Judges inexplicable ruling on Friday 29^th November 2013 our lawyer (yes, in Jersey you even have to engage a lawyer to become officially bankrupt!) brought to the court a request that we be granted the process of Remise de biens.

Should either of you not know of this ancient Jersey aspect of law what this does is bring about a form of bankruptcy which allows – subject to certain criteria all of which our situation meets – for one’s property and assets to be sold off by the court. The issue here is that there must be enough money available to pay off in full any secured creditor: in our case just our bank as the mortgage lender. Further still, that some surplus must remain to allow some form of dividend to then be shared between the unsecured creditors such as the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands – the entities who colluded to publish the lies claiming we had increased our income by four times by Trevor entering politics. 

Once accepted by the court and a Remise has been successfully completed with a property being sold and the secured creditor paid in full; and unsecured creditors having received a share of the remaining dividend, the matter is concluded and a discharge from the bankruptcy debt may be obtained allowing people to start again. This is clearly the best route for us to follow, especially given the fact that having been forced to this position by the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands an additional consequence almost no other individual would face is that we immediately lose our positions and income as States Members. 

Even given the clear UK authorities indifference to the delivery of justice here in the Crown Dependency we would thus hope that to then find the judge hearing our request for a Remise – no less an individual than the Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, attempt to wholly mislead our lawyer with false information as to how the process works and it’s benefits and drawbacks; and indeed, to suggest – in our view, we repeat, attempt  to mislead – that the best route for us would instead be to seek to go en desastre is wholly unacceptable. Following this route would actually place us in a far worse position and leave this hanging over us for a full five years 

That the Deputy Bailiff would not know of the damaging misinformation he was suggesting as the better way forward for us is clearly inconceivable. Indeed, the true facts have been verified by lawyers and even the Viscounts Office.  

We were fortunately tipped off to the above by a concerned person who was in the court on the day and we have now even secured an audio disc of the exchange. We feel that we must ask that you look into this as a matter of urgency as – very co-incidentally – the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands, having no doubt been failed by their own lawyers, just happen to now suddenly be seeking that the court reject the fully justified Remise and push us down the desastre route suggested by William Bailhache. We repeat: what a strange coincidence. Not only do two of the biggest critics of the Establishment’s failings on matters such as abuses of justice and child protection cover-ups get forced out of public office; we also face manipulation by the court down an even more damaging bankruptcy path than is necessary.  

We would thus hope that you might understand that all of the above cannot do anything, other than fill us with concern as to a likely pre-decided outcome of the Remise hearing set for Thursday 19^th December – just two days hence. After all, should you also not be aware of it this was actually set to be concluded this past Friday. However, any hopes we might have had of some degree of fair play - given that both our lawyer and the two Jurats who compiled the necessary report confirmed we met all criteria to satisfy a successful Remise were quickly stripped away when the lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Nuno Santos-Costa, informed our lawyer just moments before the hearing that he had a close personal friendship with one of the Jurats sitting; this being Jurat Collette Crill. 

Having been made aware that both the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands were attempting to buy time as they knew they really had very little grounds for argument, the fact that this Advocate – who had at no time appeared for the JEP during the defamation case – suddenly appeared to be followed by this announcement was highly suspicious in itself. Has Jersey really got such an unprofessional and shambolic court-process that a lawyer- any lawyer – would not know beforehand which Jurats were sitting?  

With this conflict raised the court retired for a brief time then returned. Here, quite incredibly, Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith announced that whilst the court would reconvene with two other Jurats at a later date Jurat Crill, nevertheless, apparently felt that her close friendship with the lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post – and a lawyer whose firm obviously stood to make many thousands of pounds from a decision in his client’s favour did ‘not’ conflict her from ‘administering justice’! 

We must put it to you as representatives of the Queen and UK government respectively that the picture this all paints of the attitude to justice for all within the island, is totally unacceptable. Indeed, once aware of who Jurat Crill was once we returned home a little on line research following further contact from the public revealed matters to be even more disturbing. 

Not only was it quite apparent that we had a Judge in William Bailhache who has no love for us or our politics, attempting to mislead our lawyer to take us down a route far more damaging to us than the requested and merited Remise de biens; it now became apparent we had had a Jurat who was intending to sit on our case in the full knowledge that she had previously written an insulting – many would say malicious – personal attack on Shona within a letter published by no less than the Jersey Evening Post. All, we would point out for the record, because Shona had dared to bring a vote of no confidence in Sir Philip Bailhache whilst he was Bailiff. This being on account of his several well documented serious failings on child abuse. 

That such behaviour could not be seen as a serious conflict of interest is impossible to credit even within a jurisdiction with Jersey’s laissez-faire approach to judicial corruption. That Jurat Crill could not be aware of her resulting conflict; or that her remaining silent on the matter was completely at odds with the principles of justice – certainly as applied by any respectable jurisdiction - are even more inarguable. Indeed, not only does the Jurat’s letter reveal just how little she was aware of the true facts relating to Jersey’s appalling child protection failings arising from those in high office; her choice of insults demonstrate beyond any question her entirely prejudiced attitude to a person upon whom the Jurat wished to now ‘administer justice’. For the record we reproduce the letter from Jurat Crill below.  

As you will both be aware we have little reason to have any faith in the justice system that is allowed to operate under this present Bailiff, Sir Michael Birt, and for very good reason when one considers the evidence of our case alone. A case that is, of course, just one of many destroying the lives of ordinary Jersey people simply because the UK does not fulfil its obligation to step in on ensuring good governance and law and order. As with a growing number of other islanders we will continue to highlight these abuses and fight for them to be rectified no matter what.  

Yet with our hearing set for just two days hence we first urgently ask you: what confidence can we have that a process for which we meet all of the criteria (even with our home having been mysteriously undervalued compared with independent valuations of just a year ago to the tune of some £60 + thousand) will not somehow instead be manipulated to accommodate the wishes of the Jersey Evening Post and Broadlands estate agents? We have, it must be said, been put through hell by the catalogue of appalling failings allowed to go un-rectified during our case. Yet it seems that even having reached the stage when we expected to achieve – at least - some degree of conclusion for ourselves and our families the system was once again manipulated to thwart this with the unfolding of the deeply disturbing events surrounding this past week or so.  

We believe this is what is known locally as ‘The Jersey Way’. 

Yours sincerely 

Shona & Trevor Pitman 

 

17th December 2013

 

The letter published in the JEP from the now Jurat Collette Crill who attempted to sit to 'administer justice' on our case... 

JEP – 2 July 2008.  Collette Crill, Le Solaize, Les Ruisseaux, St Brelade. 

“On the day of her election, Deputy Shona Pitman engaged in offensive behaviour in public.  Many would deem that such behaviour rendered her unfit for elected office.  Since then I am unaware that the Deputy has distinguished herself as a States Member.  It seems particularly ironic, therefore, that it is she who sees fit to call for a vote of no confidence in order to vilify and bully the Bailiff.  Mont of the Bailiff’s career has been devoted to serving this Island in Crown Office, instead of pursing a more lucrative path in private practice.  One can’t help wondering whether Deputy Pitman even understands, let alone appreciates, that all our Crown Officers are highly skilled and in many cases brilliant legal practitioners who choose for altruistic reasons, to offer themselves for Crown service instead of using their admirable academic and intellectual skills in far more self-serving ways. 

Given the behaviour and performance of many of our present elected representatives on can’t help feeling that precisely the opposite motivation applies to them.  The list of our current Bailiff’s achievements for this island good is as long as it is impressive, not only as a lawyer and judge, but also in so many other aspects of island life. In common with the reset of humanity, he is not infallible and as humility is one of his many qualities, I believe he would be the first to acknowledge this.  Indeed, he has publicly expressed regret for a possible error of judgement made years ago, long before he became Bailiff, in relation to the Holland case. 

Deputy Pitman, though, would have us believe that along with one sentence in his Liberation Day speech when he spoke about Jersey’s recently maligned reputation, using a turn of phrase not quite up to Deputy Pitman’s exacting standards, this is enough to wipe out years of exemplary service and dedication to the island. 

Deputy Pitman’s use of this form of politics is absurd and risible, yet sadly dangerous and adding to the immense harm that some of our politicians seek to cause by being so obsessive destructive and negative.  She and her cabal would be far better employed in using their position and salary, our money, in trying to rectify the many genuinely important matters of injustice and inequality in this island.  Of course, it’s so much easier to be negative and destructive.  Or could it be that they don’t actually have any positive or constructive ideas to offer?”

 

 

A 'LETTER', A LIE & A RAT...OR A VERY CONVENIENT SCAM TO DISTRACT FROM JURAT WHO LOOKED THE OTHER WAY ON EVIDENCE AGAINST A CHILD ABUSER

A quick post tonight but one of grave importance, particularly if you are one of the dwindling number who puts any faith In what you will be told by the Jersey MSM tomorrow - such as the infamous Jersey Evening Pravda. Indeed, with quite remarkable coincidence the story I outline below all raised its head just days after we had lodged our court papers in regard to our November 25th application to appeal against the now infamous ruling which went against us in the '4 x the salary, darling!' defamation case.

 

Court papers, of course, that demonstrate beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt how the absolute right guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights i.e. for all people - including even Bolshie 'anti-Establishment' politicians who ask difficult questions - to have a fair trial had been completely disregarded by those at the apex of Jersey's 'justice' system.

 

What happened in this latest unfolding of skulduggery was basically this. 

 

Whilst looking after my mum at the end of last week, I was interrupted by a phone call from one Andy Sibcy - heir apparent to the role of Editor of the JEP. Within this call Sibcy attempted to force me into commenting on what he claimed was a 'letter' threatening a number of individuals with, he said, 'having their homes burnt down' should we lose our home as a result of the above said court case decision we are appealing against.

 

Obviously I informed Sibcy that I knew nothing about this whatsoever;  and also pointed out that it was a bit difficult to comment upon something which I had obviously not seen and consequently could not know the full content of. I further asked Sibcy to tell me exactly what the 'letter' (no 'letter' actually exists but more on that later) said; further still, who were these 'several' individuals who had allegedly received it. Sibcy blankly refused on both counts.

 

Alarm bells to yet more possible dirty tricks were already beginning to ring very loudly.

 

After all, where else would the verdict of just two Jurats - one who had not only been proven to have a history of happily disregarding evidence against a predatory paedophile; but had also been caught out having taken a director of the JEP's owning company to dinner at his own home be allowed to stand once these breaches of the ECHR had been highlighted for the authorities as they had done here in Jersey? The answer of course is nowhere.

 

So how credible really was it now that anyone allegedly receiving a serious threat relating to our case (allegedly) would run to the good old JEP or any media instead of just to the Police? It wasn't I concluded. Not unless there was an ulterior motive here and a very serious one at that.

 

Yet Andy Sibcy was telling me that this 'letter' I wasn't allowed to know the full content of; nor to know how credible the individuals were who had allegedly received it, was 'clearly' emanating from 'our supporters' and by extension Shona and I ourselves. Of course, as with so much of the misrepresented rubbish and  even smears the Jersey Evening Pravda churn out against those who don't toe the Establishment Party line, Sibcy's justification for such a claim was non existent. 

 

Sibcy, it seems, had just decided in time honoured Pravda fashion that this was the case. A little matter which made the fact that his 'newspaper' was apparently planning to run a cover story inferring this the very next day even more concerning. Obviously should any such incident genuinely have arisen from any 'supporter' known to Shona or I we would condemn such an action.

 

Not only would such behaviour be wholly wrong - we simply do not need any such actions: our case is rock solid and try as the Establishment might (and no doubt will) ultimately, whether here or via the Privy Council or Strasbourg, Jersey's  kangaroo 'justice' system will be brought to book for not insuring the ECHR Article 6 court process which was our right. No, the whole thing smelt of a set up.

 

Our biggest concern - and the concern that ultimately informed our decision to seek a temporary injunction on this nonsense being published was that some of those who had allegedly received this threatening 'letter' might be from within the judiciary - a judiciary of course who in just two and a half weeks we would be appealing to for justice!

 

Thus to cut a very long story short (for the present time) with both Pravda and even the Police - who I had contacted straightaway - completely refusing to give me any details ,we made the decision to seek the said temporary injunction to stand just until the day after our appeal hearing would be concluded. Hopefully by which time the Police investigation would also have brought to book the culprits.

 

This initial request for a temporary injunction until we could find out the truth was granted by Mr Pitchers QC, until a court hearing to ascertain more details could take place today at 4pm.

 

Of course, as we were to eventually find out - if only Mr Sibcy would have been a bit more forthcoming with his over-the-top hype to try and make me comment and accept his spin on things as to what had allegedly taken place; and as to the contents of the 'letter' we really wouldn't have bothered. Yes, whilst unpleasant to be sure it really was in truth that much of a non-story. Unless, I suppose, you are a party hoping to damage another without any justification or evidence for some reason?

 

For lo and behold, shortly before going to court I was eventually able to pin down the Police Officers who were investigating the case. It was, even with their understandable inability to tell me everything with an investigation to run, starkly illuminating in comparison with the Sibcy and Pravda version.

 

I wasn't a suspect in being behind this. Shona was not a suspect in being behind this. Indeed, contrary to the JEP claims the Police confirmed there was also absolutely no evidence or credible suggestion that the 'letter' (more on that in a minute, honest!) must have 'clearly' emanated from what Sibcy called 'our supporters' at all! It was just bull. The rat if I may use that term began to smell even more strongly!

 

And yet on going to court for the hearing we were to be in for even more shocks. The alleged 'letter' didn't as I say exist at all. All that did - and suddenly thanks to the judge the JEP had to allow Shona and I to finally see it as they could have done when Sibcy was spinning his story - was nothing more than 5 scrawled and badly written lines in what looks like marker pen. A note of just 16 words. Its content not even a shadow of the abuse Shona and I - as with many others - have complained to the Police, the Data Protection Office, and the Attorney General about on numerous occasions. And guess what else?

 

• It did not even refer to either Shona or me by name at any point!
• It did not even specifically mention our court case by name!
• Indeed, just as the Police said it did not provide even the remotest justification for Sibcy's claim that it 'clearly' came from 'our supporters'!

 

Odd then how the JEP had managed to contrive such a potentially damaging, for both our case and, indeed, our public reputation interpretation of this note? The undeniable fact was it had all of the suggestions of an attempted stitch up from someone wanting to try and discredit Shona and I and with it undermine our appeal against the failings of the Jersey courts.

 

And yet the stink arising from this stunt was about to reach heights that would even make a Jersey tax avoidance 'sniff test' official suspicious. For we finally got to know the 4 names of the apparent recipients.  

• Lawyer for the Jersey Evening Post, Advocate Danny Le Maistre
•  Lawyer for Broadlands/1st Jersey Limited, Advocate David Steenson
• The individual behind the infamous '4 x the salary, darling!'advert/cartoon Mr Roger Trower

 

And finally....

 

One Deputy Sean Power!

 

Yes, you read that correctly - Deputy Sean Power. A man who hasn't got the remotest link to our court case in any way. But a man who has only recently been afforded the front page of the Jersey Evening Post to spin lies about us relating to a planning application. Lies, of course, for which he has been asked to apologise for by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Rob Duhamel, after Shona publicly exposed him and requested that the Minister take action. An apology, for which we still await.

 

Deputy Sean Power: a man who you might recall had to resign in shame as Minister for Housing after he was caught out having stolen personal e-mails from Deputy Judy Martin relating to her friend, the Deputy of Grouville. E-mails which then ended up on an sickening Internet hate site. A man who we can only conclude appears to have some kind of warped personal vendetta against Shona and I, of the sort you might usually associate with the likes of a deranged Internet troll perhaps?

 

And that - for now - is where I will leave it. This attempt to link either Shona or myself, or indeed any of 'our supporters' has about as much credibility as a Jurat who refuses to look at evidence against a paedophile. It stinks of set up. And it needs the Police to leave no stone unturned in bringing those behind it to court. Trouble is with our experience of 'justice' in Jersey even if the Police do so, those behind it will likely be referred to just a parish hall inquiry for their sins. Its just 'the Jersey Way'...

 

Meanwhile, the Police have been handed two names by me which really do merit the most rapid and thorough investigation possible.  To this regard I am confident that not even Andy Sibcy or his Pravda employers could sell either one to the public as being 'our supporters'  in a month of Sundays. Of course, when people are desperate they still may well try....

 

Keep the Faith. The Privy Council and if necessary Strasbourg grow ever closer and with this ultimately a Justice system where that justice will at last be guaranteed for all. Truth will always win out in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

JERSEY CORRUPTION: UK GOVERNMENT FAILS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS ON 'GOOD GOVERNANCE'

 

 Where else but Jersey would an individual happy to look the other way on evidence against a predatory paedophile then be allowed to sit as a Jurat (lay judge) for 14 years?

Introduction to a betrayal

I publish below for readers a press release from Deputy Shona Pitman and myself. That we have reluctantly taken this step is due to the frightening reality that our island's 'justice' system has become a tool of oppression rather than arbiter of fairness and protection for all ordinary citizens.

The fact is that complaints alleging corruption being brought to a number of politicians can now simply no longer be ignored. The reported abuses are as diverse as the members of the public bringing them to us. Indeed, three of we 'backbenchers' are currently collating these for forthcoming action. Just as with our own experiences of Jersey 'justice' outlined below the facts presented are deeply disturbing.

Justice should not depend on wealth and influence. It should not only be consistent but should be guaranteed for all. Yet in Jersey today the  truth is that it is not.

For example, where else would you see the blatant double standards and abuse of process that saw the Bailiff's Office ruling that neither he, Michael Birt nor Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache could sit on our case due to our political 'relationship' - yet simultaneously allow a Jurat who is a personal friend of a director of a powerful defendant, the owners of the Jersey Evening Post, to do just this? The appalling conflict of interest is clear to all. Yet the Bailiff and his Deputy seek to play this down. Why?

Incompetence? Negligence? Corruption? If two public figures with a comparative platform to protest can be abused in this way then what hope is there, we ask, for the vulnerable victims of decades of child abuse within States institutions? It is time that the UK government fulfilled its obligations and intervened to restore 'justice and good governance'.

Sadly, even with the added voice of other appalled States Members writing in our support thus far it has not. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. In the coming days we will be publishing a number of letters and documents relating to our own case. In the meantime please take a few minutes to watch the above video interview: the true cost of 21st Century 'Jersey justice'.

For the record it should also be noted here that in a move reminiscent of their post WW11 refusal to allow the Jersey Democratic Movement to advertise its manifesto for democratic reform, our island's only newspaper again refused to allow us to publicise our side of what is a deeply disturbing story of an abuse of justice. Just as they have done since the case. Why ever could that be, we ask?

PRESS RELEASE

Two Members of Jersey’s Parliament have today called for the UK government – which has overall responsibility to ensure ‘good governance’ in the Channel Islands - to urgently investigate what they describe as the ‘spiralling evidence of the wide-spread breakdown of law within the island’s justice system.’

Child Abuse Scandal

The Deputies say that ‘justice in the island’ (which came under the global spotlight with the unfolding of the ‘institutional’ child abuse scandal in 2008) ‘is being betrayed by a mixture of top level incompetence, corruption and intimidation. Much of this being a direct reaction from those in the island’s Establishment desperate to bury any dissenting opposition to getting to the truth about decades of child abuse cover-ups.’

‘Far from ensuring justice for the people of Jersey our Law Office has become the tool of choice for the clique at the apex of power to try to silence and, if necessary, drive from office or ruin those who dare challenge the established order; or persist in fighting the cause of the ever-growing number of people coming forward to complain of corruption; whether relating to child abuse or abuse of the legal process.’

This has already seen the former Chief of Police (the initiating officer of the child abuse investigations), Mr. Graham Power QPM forced from office by an illegal suspension that failed to result in any disciplinary charges. It has also seen a former Health Minister, at the centre of revelations about the abuse, ousted; and currently being silenced by a blatant misuse of the Data Protection Law within ‘top secret’ Royal Court hearings – all being paid for out of the tax coffers. Files and records relating to children abused within the Jersey care system have conveniently ‘gone missing’ from within both the Police system and government departments. Evidenced cases against abusers have inexplicably not been pursued by the island’s Law Office.

Banning of US Journalist

This manipulation of justice has even seen the contrived banning of a respected US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from the island once it became apparent she was researching child abuse cover-ups and the island links to Jimmy Savile. A ban only lifted following the intervention of UK MP John Hemming and an international petition campaign initiated by Deputy Trevor Pitman himself.  Trevor Pitman states that along with two other political ‘backbench’ colleagues the number of complaints alleging corruption received from members of the public has reached deeply disturbing proportions in recent months.

Legal System - Corruption

These complaints have included alleged tampering with court transcripts; destruction of and refusal to look at evidence; inconsistency in sentencing; and even perjury and collusion between lawyers. The recently leaked 'Barton Report' of a disciplinary hearing involving police at the centre of the illegal bugging allegations in the ‘Drug Baron’ Curtis Warren case even revealed claims of falsified and unsigned statements being presented instead of original documents.

Yet the Deputies say the cold, hard evidence of the justice system being in desperate need of external investigation; and the depth of the obstacles facing victims of the cover-ups was only brought home to them after they pursued the island’s only, and hugely influential, pro-establishment newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post to court for defamation along with one of its millionaire clients. The newspaper and its estate agent client Broadlands had mocked the couple after Trevor Pitman’s election, falsely claiming they had increased their salary four-fold by entering politics when in reality they had taken a drop in income of thousands.

Jurat Supports Paedophile in Previous Job as Vice-Principle

‘It was shocking enough given the evidence that we then found ourselves losing the case,’ say the Deputies; ‘we subsequently then discovered that the Senior Jurat (lay judge) John Le Breton had been allowed by the Bailiff’s Office to sit in judgement of the case even though he was a personal friend of the newspaper’s longest-serving Director; the two regularly socialising together and even going to dinner at each other’s home. All of this being evidenced’.

An even bigger shock for the Deputies was the subsequent leaking of a government suppressed report (the 1999 Sharp Report) into another horrific child abuse scandal at the island’s Victoria College (an exclusive ‘fee-paying’ secondary school).  The report revealed that John Le Breton, as Vice Principle had refused to look at evidence against a friend and colleague, the predatory paedophile, Andrew Jervis-Dykes. 

He instead wrote in support of him claiming amongst other things that: Jervis-Dykes had served the College in an ‘outstandingly competent and conscientious way’; that unless police decided to prosecute, the abuse would be seen as ‘an unsubstantiated allegation’. Le Breton even appealed for the paedophile to be allowed to stay on at the school and if he had to resign be allowed to do so with ‘some dignity’. Incredibly Le Breton was put forward for the Jurat role by a politician who was both on the College’s Board of Governors at the time and a former president of the government’s Education Committee!’

The Deputies add, ‘when you bring this to the attention of the Chief Minister, Bailiff (Head of Judiciary and Legislature) and Deputy Bailiff, where both Crown Officers just happen to also be friends of the Jurat in question - you are told: ‘if you don’t like it – appeal’.  The Crown Officers know full well, that the above information not only came to light after our case and has implications far beyond this alone; but that it would necessitate at least another £30,000: monies that most ordinary people do not have.

Jurat Le Breton was allowed to sit by two successive Bailiff’s for a period of 14 years – including sitting on some child abuse cases until retiring just after the Pitman’s’ case. ‘This demonstrates just how unfit for purpose Jersey’s system of election and monitoring of Jurats is’, says Deputy Shona Pitman, adding ‘how in the 21^st Century can Jurats be elected in secret by only politicians and lawyers – many of whom will regularly be friends of those proposed?’

UK Justice Minister fails obligations of good governance

Yet even with the backing of around a dozen equally appalled fellow politicians and prominent justice campaigners, the Deputies say that the injustice they have been dealt is as yet failing to be adequately dealt with as it should by the UK justice Ministry. ‘The evidence in our case is overwhelming,’ say the Deputies, ‘just as it is in many other cases. Yet even when presented with all of the details (as outlined above) and letters of support from other concerned public figures, the excuse from Lord McNally has been that as “Jersey has its own justice system we can’t really interfere’’ (see enclosed correspondence).

‘Most absurd of all perhaps’, add the Deputies, ‘is that ‘the Justice Minister instead offers to ‘forward our concerns’ to the Bailiff – the very individual who has allowed all of this to happen! What this shows is the deeply troubling attitude to justice from those holding power within the justice system here and the UK Minister responsible for ‘good governance’ in a small and apparently ‘insignificant’ jurisdiction’.

‘At the bottom line’, conclude the Deputies, ‘if these failings are allowed to continue, if successive Bailiffs and other Crown Officers can allow an individual who refused to look at evidence against a predatory paedophile yet supported him – to sit as a Jurat for 14 years; including on subsequent cases of abuse what hope, we ask, have the victims of Jimmy Savile and the Haut de la Garenne child abuse scandal of getting justice here? What hope has any ordinary citizen who rocks the Establishment boat? The answer must be a resounding none. It is time the UK government stepped up to the plate and fulfilled its obligations. Should they not do so then it can only be concluded that Westminster must be complicit in all of this.’ Full story: www.thebaldtruthjerseyblogspot.com

For further information contact: Deputy Trevor Pitman 07797 824243/01534) 863436           Deputy Shona Pitman 07797 778561