Democracy and justice in Jersey working as well as ever...
I publish below the personal statement set to be read by Deputy Shona Pitman on behalf of us both within the States Sitting on Tuesday the 16th April 2013. It complies with Standing Orders in every way. Indeed it relates matters entirely linked to our personal case - highlighting as it does the appalling abuse of the 'justice' system that we have suffered. Even the names of those who have caused this travesty were deliberately omitted for the statement.
Of course, though all facts outlined relate to our personal case clearly the unchecked abuse and failings in what is passed off as 'justice' in Jersey obviously cast light on deeply disturbing matters that will impact on anyone else - particularly of 'peasant stock' -daring to stand up against the bullying, elitism and abuse of position on which Jersey's Establishment has been constructed and survived over all these decades. Inconvenient for some this may be, we accept. But it is wholly irrelevant.
Yet regardless of this full compliance Jersey's Bailiff Sir Michael Birt banned us from carrying out our right - enshrined in Standing orders - as elected representatives of the people. He manages to interpret Standing Order 16 (2) in a way that is the equivilent of transforming black into white - or perhaps in this case case white into black.
It is a farce. It is embarrassing. It is yet another sickening abuse of democracy and justice. Of course, we know that the Jersey Evening Pravda and its lawyers are working desperately to suppress the truth of the complete and utter failure of the court case from which they seek to bebefit from to comply with ECHR Article 6. Indeed, it is even easy to understand their desperartion if not their lack of morals in doing so: they had convenienetly been allowed a Jurat who was the 'mate' of a compmany director to sit on the case!
But should we not be able to expect more from the Pressident of the island's government than using his position to try and keep these facts from the public? How unfortunate it is that the person ultimately responsible for allowing the appalling abuse of an inpossibly conflicted Jurat (one John Le Breton) to preside over our case just happened to be the President of the States himself within his 'other' role as Chief Judge? Yes, the very same jersey Bailiff whose Office had indisputably failed so utterly!
Lord McNally, Justice Minister for the United Kingdom government: when will you finally wake up and smell the coffee. 'Justice' in this beautiful island of ours; just as with the Dual Role itself is a total affront to a modern democracy.
PERSONAL
STATEMENT: 16th APRIL 2013
'This
statement has been jointly written by both Deputy Trevor Pitman and I.
In April
of 2012, Members will recall we unsuccessfully took a defamation action against
the Jersey Evening Post and the estate agents, Broadlands; this being for the
publication of an advert which we believed portrayed us as standing for
election primarily for financial gain.
Individuals
will have their own opinion as to the excuses put forward by the defendants as
underlying an advert that depicted us smirking with the words ‘4 x the salary,
darling!’ Not least because the reality was that our joint annual income had
dropped by £5000, with us both now being States Members; nor indeed was 4 x a
salary the mortgage lending rate at the time.
Nevertheless, the fact is that
there are very serious Human Rights issues concerning our court hearing and the
wider judicial system generally which have either been deliberately misrepresented
or even wholly suppressed by the local mainstream media.
We
highlight this now within this forum, because they have severely affected not
only us and our families and friends but; as the Judiciary is meant to be there
to protect and serve the interests of all people, this statement is relevant to
all Islanders. The fact is that these
concerns go to the very root of the right of all people to be given a fair and
just trial in accordance with European Court of Human Rights Article 6.
Sadly,
in spite of the evidenced reality of the failings in the court process
underlying our case the greatest concern of all is that those at the apex of
the Jersey Justice system refuse to acknowledge these errors. That this should be so even with such clear
breaches regarding the requirement for a Jurat or juror to recuse him or
herself due to a conflict of interest, arising from a relationship existing
with a plaintiff or defendant must be seen as deeply worrying. Mistakes, of
course, are made by all. Yet once highlighted genuine mistakes are then acknowledged
and put right.
That
such a conflicting relationship i.e. a personal friendship exists between the
individual who was the senior Jurat sitting on our case and the
longest-standing Director of the Guiton Group, who own the JEP is indisputable. Indeed, upon this coming to light after the
trial had concluded - thanks to members of the public contacting both ourselves
and our lawyers – this relationship has been confirmed: the Jurat even
admitting socialising with the director including at each other’s homes.
Yet
the Jurat; the Bailiff and his Deputy all astonishingly still attempt to play
this down. The question that obviously
has to be asked is why?
After all, the
wholly inappropriate nature of this Jurat ignoring the rules on recusal, to sit,
is starkly demonstrated by the correct decision of the Bailiff and Deputy
Bailiff - that they themselves were conflicted and thus could not sit on the
case due to our purely political relationship.
This is, it is quite obvious, a relationship that is far less personal and
intimate than that existing between the Jurat and the company director of the
defendant’s newspaper. Neither of us has
ever socialised privately at either Crown Officers’ home or them at our own. There is no personal relationship whatsoever.
That
the Jersey Evening Post has misled their readers by not reporting this reality
should be of great concern to all who are committed to justice and
transparency. The truth is that the JEP through their lawyers, and Broadlands
are currently still attempting to seek in the region of £200,000 from us on the
back of proceedings which they are well aware are wholly in conflict with ECHR
Article 6. What, both we and our families and friends ask, does this say about the
integrity of these organisations and the justice system?
Since
our case it is interesting to note that we have seen a move by the Home Affairs
Minister, that should there be a perceived conflict with local Jurats sitting
on a case, Guernsey Jurats will be able to be seconded to the Island
to preside over consideration of evidence and fact in a case. This is to many aware of the situation a
recognition that the current situation cannot be satisfactory in all instances.
Yet
the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff and Chief Minister upon appeals to them, apparently
do not view our case as an instance where such modernisation would need to be
employed. Is it any wonder we
consequently ask that a growing number
of people - upon becoming aware of our treatment - begin to wonder that there
may be some more sinister, perhaps political motive behind all of this?
It
is also equally apparent to us that to save the Island money our Jurats, simply
should not be permitted to sit on specific bodies such as boards of media groups;
as although they may recuse themselves on a case they may still be a friend of
a colleague on such a body. As the late
Lord Denning and others have stressed the Judiciary simply must be seen to be
unbiased, transparent and highly professional because it is called upon to make
decisions that can change, the course of person’s life. There must be no perception of even potential
bias.
The
public must be in no doubt that justice in our Island
is beyond reproach and guaranteed for all; and is not dependant upon the depth
of a person’s wallet or holding a position of influence. Since our highlighting
of these concerns via both local Citizens’ Media justice campaigners and
international media the fact that so many people are now approaching us and
colleagues with justice issues demonstrates that the total confidence that
should exist in the Island to this regard does
not. As previously announced a portfolio of these separate cases is currently
being collated for eventual presentation to the Lieutenant-Governor.
Yet
unfortunately there is also a second very serious concern highlighted by what
has come to light since the hearing of our own case. Sadly it relates to the
very same Jurat and raises serious questions about the whole validity of his
tenure; and in particular his capability to make sound judgements that any and
all members of the public could have confidence in. It also raises serious
questions as to the adequacy of both the appointment and monitoring processes
relating to Jurats in Jersey.
The
Jurat (now retired) was previously employed as a Vice-Principle at Victoria College. As revealed in the Sharp Report
1999, a
document still suppressed by the Education, Sport & Culture Department this
individual refused to look at evidence against his then friend and colleague,
the convicted paedophile, Andrew Jervis-Dykes. Jervis-Dykes was eventually
sentenced to 4 years for the sexual abuse of College pupils.
As
reported by Stephen Sharp not only did the Jurat allowed to sit on our case refuse,
as Vice-Principle to look at evidence against Jervis-Dykes, he subsequently
even wrote to the Board of Governors supporting the Jervis-Dykes. Amongst other comments he described the
paedophile as having served the College with ‘outstanding competence and
conscientiousness’. Further still, that
unless the Police pressed charges the matter could be seen as arising from an
‘unsubstantiated allegation’; and that if Jervis-Dykes had to resign he should
be allowed to work out his notice still teaching and then ‘resign with some
dignity’!
We
were deeply shocked to discover that in spite of all of this, having opted to
take early retirement when the Jervis-Dykes case finally became public this
individual was shortly afterward put forward to become a Jurat. Proposed for this role by people including
none other than a former President of the Education Committee; a former States
Member who was actually on the Victoria College Board of Governors when the
Jervis-Dykes abuse scandal took place.
Although
this was unknown to us until after our court case when we managed to get hold
of a copy of the Sharp Report the clear and very serious failings apparent in
this Jurat’s judgement highlighted by Stephen Sharp were clearly known to many
within the hierarchy of Jersey’s Law Office and justice system: including both
the present and previous Bailiff (who was actually on the Victoria College
Board of Governors himself). The responsibility for monitoring an individual’s
appropriateness for the role of Jurat lies with the Bailiff and the Superior
Number – the other Jurats – yet no one at any time acted on these concerns.
Why?
How,
we ask Members, can we have any confidence that a Jurat - who had already
demonstrated this deeply suspect judgement and attitude to evidence against a paedophile
would or could then put aside the clear and serious conflict of interest of his
personal relationship with the director of a company owning the Jersey Evening
Post who were defendants in our case? We
cannot. Jurats are, of course, not
trained or classed as ‘expert’ in the same way as a Judge. They are lay people
and thus subject to the same prejudicial concerns as members of a jury.
It
is quite clear that rather than maintaining silence on the failings within the
process of our court case, the authorities should have long moved for a
mistrial. It is simply not right or good
enough that these serious failings are met with a response of ‘if you don’t
like it, simply appeal.’ Not only did
the above all come to light after the court case’s conclusion the reality is
that we, like the majority of Islanders, do not have the tens of thousands of
pounds needed to appeal. Nor, indeed,
should people be left in this position as a direct consequence of what are
clear failings by an individual Jurat for not recusing himself as required; and
equally by the Bailiff’s Office for not having ensured all was as required for
an ECHR compliant trial.
To
this regard, we would also express our sincere gratitude to the political
colleagues past and present who have been brave enough to write to the UK Justice
Minister expressing their support for us in raising these concerns. A further
fact that the Jersey Evening Post have conveniently kept from their readers in
misrepresenting the realities of a case they know is deeply flawed yet seek to
benefit from.
That
the UK
Justice Minister has thus far failed to intervene in the interests of ensuring
justice and good governance in our Crown Dependency is deeply disturbing to
many. Indeed, it is surely absurd and indicative of a relationship in need of
overhaul that the Minister instead offers to refer the failings to the Island’s Bailiff – the very Office whose failings have
allowed this to happen in the first place.
Justice
we repeat should be guaranteed for all irrespective of political leanings. It cannot be allowed within any true and self-respecting
democracy to become a tool of suppressing dissenting voices. Failure to rectify the wrongs that have been
allowed to happen in our case against the JEP and Broadlands can be seen only
as evidence that this is the unfortunate and unpalatable reality of the court
system in Jersey today.
We
shall thus continue our fight until we get the justice that is so rightly ours
and that of all Islanders.'
