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?”

 

 

THE DUAL ROLE OF THE BAILIFF FARCE - STATES PRESIDENT BANS STATEMENT ON THE CHIEF JUDGE I.E. HIMSELF!

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.'