EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 7

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s dispatches from the front-line – where Samuel Beckett could be on a dérive - in the plot of Catch-22 – or a frightened Franz Kafka could be revising the plot of The Trial – from observing the Potemkin Court that is the Jersey “judicial” system.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON - # 7

“Thanks to modern systems of accessing knowledge, and personal experience - it can be stated with some confidence that this applicant is probably better-placed than any person in the previous 800 years of Jersey’s status as a quasi-self-governing jurisdiction to see and understand the true nature of the Crown’s purported “judicial” function in the island.

Whilst very extensive written submissions are made in these applications – submissions which deal in detail with both evidential facts and legal argument – there is a need for an economical way of summarising what it is we are dealing with – a means of distilling “the issue” down to its pure essence – so that it can be easily held up to the light, as it were – and the responsibilities of the respondent Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State can be considered accordingly.

No new terminology needs to be invented. The perfect phrase already exists:

Potemkin Village.

The Jersey judicial and prosecution function is a Potemkin Village.

It is as simple as that.

With grand buildings, and fanfares, and fancy-dress, and ceremonies and stentorian posturing – the prosecution function and the judicial function in Jersey might – at the most fleeting of glances – give the appearance of being a real prosecution function – and a real judicial function.

They are not.

The “system” is a Potemkin Village.

With a Potemkin Court.

The instant you get up close to it – you see it for the painted scenery that it is. The fakery isn’t even well done. You can see the supposedly solid structures, swaying with the breeze. You go up to them – peer around the edges of the sagging cardboard and paste – and see a few silly old men and their stage-hands desperately trying to keep the painted flats propped-up with a few lengths of 2 x 4 and some bits of string – the images running & melting in the dampness - futile in the hard gale and rain of modernity.

The Crown prosecution function and the Crown judicial function in Jersey are not – remotely - lawful – are not real. Not by any even vaguely credible application of the basic principles of the proper administration of justice.  They are fake; are make-believe.

The phrase Potemkin Village arose from what many historians now say was a myth, of Grigory Potemkin erecting fake villages along the banks of the Dnieper River in order to give a false impression of inhabited and happy communities to Empress Catherine II during a visit to the Crimea in 1787.

Although of dubious historic origin, the phrase Potemkin Village is now widely used in languages around the world - typically in politics, economics and law -  to describe any construction (literal or figurative) built solely to deceive others into thinking that some entity or state of affairs is better than it actually is.

The phrase “Potemkin village” has come to mean, especially in a political context, any hollow or false construct, physical or figurative, meant to hide an undesirable, inconvenient or potentially damaging reality.

There could not be a better description of the purpose - and the reality - of the Crown functions in Jersey.

The phrase Potemkin Village is especially valuable in the context of these applications - and the responsibilities – and unlawful failures – of the defendant UK authorities, because the phrase is often used to describe tortuous and, essentially artificial legal constructs, arrived at by courts so as to avoid potentially controversial collisions with the executive or legislative realms.

The construction of a Potemkin-Village-judgment by a court will be engaged in when the court - often wrongly – finds it easier to avert its eyes from the plain realities of a case, because a true and accurate judgment would effectively drive an important and far-reaching policy decision. Some judges and some courts are especially cautious about producing judgments which might be seen to tread onto the territory of matters best left to the executive and the legislature.

It seems probable that such considerations – whether the issues concerning the breakdown in good governance and the structural ultra vires of the polity in the Crown Dependency of Jersey should be best left to the UK executive – will colour the thinking of the London courts in respect of these applications.

However – the rule of law is, ultimately – the rule of law.

Then no matter that the correct application and enforcement of the law does force the executive into a change in policy – so be it.

As the late Tom Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law: -

“Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.

“This principle follows naturally from the two principles just considered, and indeed may be said to be inherent in them. But it deserves separate mention, since many would regard it as lying at the very heart of the rule of law principle. It is indeed fundamental. For although the citizens of a democracy empower their representative institutions to make laws which, duly made, bind all to whom they apply, and it falls to the executive, the government of the day and its servants, to carry these laws into effect, nothing ordinarily authorizes the executive to act otherwise than in strict accordance with those laws.”

To suggest that the courts might be cautious in making decisions that have far-reaching policy impacts upon the executive, is not to make any criticism of the courts. In a democracy it is right and sensible that the court be alert to the fact it is not its role to govern.

But if some current policy position of the executive is unlawful – if some acts or omissions are ultra vires – if the case-specific circumstances are such that it is proportionately required – then the rule of law trumps the policy.

The fatal difficulty for the respondent authorities in these applications – the Privy Council, Crown, and Secretary of State – is not merely that the polity of Jersey for which they are responsible is a Potemkin Village – but, actually, the apparatus and mechanism of the respondent authorities themselves – by which they pretend to discharge their duties in respect of the Crown Dependency of Jersey – is itself a Potemkin Village.

The Crown Dependencies oversight function exercised by the respondent authorities is a Potemkin Village.

It is an ultra vires situation – with many dramatic and evidenced and deeply serious ultra vires consequences.

No matter that it overturn decades of policy stasis on the part of the respondent authorities – their policy is stale – failed – stagnant – unlawful.

The rule of law will out…….”
 

“……….Commissioner Sir Christopher Pitchers:

“………….Sir Christopher Pitchers was chosen and appointed to hear the appeal by the directly and immensely conflicted Bailiff, Michael Birt – who had been the Attorney General in 1999.

Upon that basis alone – just as in the applicant’s tabled civil claims in Jersey and the appointment of Sir Charles Gray by Birt – the resultant tribunal could not be, nor ever was, regarded as “objective and impartial”.

A person cannot appoint judges in their own cause.

The fact that one has to argue for that point in Jersey - in the year 2013 - is, of itself, very clear evidence of the ultra vires failure of the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State to ensure the proper administration of justice and effectiveness of human rights in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Commissioner Pitchers – although repeatedly asked - refused at the outset – and repeatedly refused for a sustained time – to declare his knowledge of, and acquaintance with, interested parties. This was unlawful.

It is established English jurisprudence that judges, in the first instance, can decide themselves whether they are conflicted – and can make an initial decision upon a recusal application.

However – it is established law that any potential conflicts of interest – no matter how remote - should be declared to the parties.

One of the key functions of judicial processes is the right to appeal. If a judge who has faced a recusal application which he has turned down, has failed to declare all relevant factors, then an affected party is automatically prevented from enjoying their right to mount an effective appeal.

Commissioner Pitchers only much later in the proceedings – and after persistent challenges – did eventually – and even then only with great reluctance - declare his knowledge of, and acquaintance with, certain conflicted parties.

The two parties in question being - Bailiff Michael Birt - and Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache - who Pitchers eventually admitted having dined with.

Quite extraordinarily, Pitchers had refused to disclosure these fatal facts for many, many months.

There are probably no more conflicted, interested parties in the proceedings against the applicant – than Michael Birt - and William Bailhache.

Both former Jersey Attorney Generals – both of who have – on the evidence - made various dangerous, conflicted, unsafe and corrupt decisions in respect of prosecutions; questionable prosecution decisions that the applicant was, expressly, investigating and challenging in the public interest, and as an elected representative.

Indeed, it was for having undertaken such activity – criticising the Office of Attorney General - the applicant was being prosecuted – as was made plain at an early stage, though probably inadvertently, by Michael Birt’s friend, prosecuting Advocate Stephen Baker….. ”
 

“……….Sir Christopher Pitchers was actually chosen and appointed by the most directly conflicted public official in Jersey – Michael Birt – yet not content with that, Pitchers then dines with Birt – and William Bailhache – the second-most conflicted public official in Jersey. He then – for months and months – illegally conceals these profoundly conflicting and contaminating facts from the defence.

The hubris on display exemplifies all that is dangerous and stagnant about judicial conduct in Jersey……….” 

“………..Commissioner Pitchers was repeatedly, and from the outset, questioned about potential conflicts of interest and acquaintance with interested parties, by the defence. He kept that knowledge and evidence concealed for months.

Pitchers was not capable of constituting an objective and impartial tribunal in any matter involving the applicant – nor involving Bailhache or Birt. This is another grossly unlawful failure by Jersey’s judicial apparatus – and thus a grossly unlawful failure by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State…….” 

“………..Nevertheless, the applicant obtained an affidavit from the former Chief of Police, Graham Power – which contains wholly damming testimony concerning the lawless conduct of Jersey Attorney General William Bailhache. The applicant again applied to make a judicial review application.

Remarkably – although he had already ruled that the question of the vires of the conduct of the Attorney General could not be challenged in the criminal appeal – Commissioner Pitchers was appointed - by the conflicted Michael Birt - to be the judge who heard this fresh judicial review application. Even more remarkably – Pitchers rejected judicially reviewing the vires of the conduct of the Attorney General – falsely claiming that the applicant already had access to a remedy in the criminal appeal – when Pitchers himself had already dismissed bringing any such matters into the criminal appeal.

By this stage events had transcended a point which the imaginings of Kafka alone could have conjured.  It was actually funny – in grim way – like some fantastical blend of The Trial - with Catch-22 – and as dramatised by Samuel Beckett.

During this rejected judicial review application, the applicant repeated a request he had made many times earlier, for the prosecution to disclose to him a copy of the detailed statements Police Chief Graham Power had prepared for the Wiltshire police force, because it had been suggested to the applicant that they contained evidence of relevance to his case and the defence arguments.

Throughout the earlier proceedings, the Crown prosecution lawyer – Michael Birt and William Bailhache’s friend, Stephen Baker - had repeatedly refused to disclose Police Chief Graham Power’s statement. Stephen Baker repeatedly claimed that “it would not be disclosed, because it did not contain anything of relevance to the case”.

Due only to the applicant’s persistence in asking the question, Commissioner Pitchers eventually - in one of his frequent and undisguised displays of irritation at the applicant’s impertinence in running a defence  – asked the prosecution lawyer “whether the document in question contained anything of relevance?”

Quiet astonishingly, the Crown lawyer Stephen Baker– after several moments of deafening silence – and staring at the ceiling - said - “I don’t know sir, I haven’t read it.”

Even setting aside all of the vast list of other, and prior, misfeasances and corruptions in the conduct of the case – and instead considering just this one moment – this was The End of the Crown’s case – the moment the prosecution self-immolated.

In making that statement, the prosecuting lawyer was admitting to having repeatedly lied to the courts - and lied throughout the entirety of the earlier proceedings – when falsely claiming that the evidence sought for disclosure had been considered, and deemed to be ‘not relevant’ and therefore, ‘not needing to be disclosed’.

This revelation showed a breathtaking abuse-of-process and a straightforward denial of justice.

It is worth digressing to just reflect upon the fact that what we are considering is - evidencedly - not some mere fatal “mistake” by the prosecuting lawyer – some inadvertent error that destroys the prosecution for having been an abuse-of-process – but rather out-and-out malfeasance. Up to the moment of his confession, Stephen Baker had repeatedly – repeatedly – with mens rea – lied to the court and the applicant. This is misconduct in a public office - and conspiracy to pervert justice – by Advocate Stephen Baker. But – in the Potemkin Village that is the criminal “justice” system in Jersey, who would charge and prosecute Baker? His close friends in the Law Officers Department who he works with on a day-to-day basis – and who were being protected from scrutiny by the malicious prosecution of the applicant in the first place?

What might have been the outcome of the prosecution against the applicant at earlier stages – if the evidence sought for disclosure had, in fact, been examined and assessed? Not only that statement by Mr Power – but other evidence too? Much – if not all of it – should have been disclosed to the applicant – as the applicant had sought from the outset in his original disclosure letter (supplied) to Advocate Robin Morris.  

The disclosures that should have followed would have had a dramatic effect upon the research, the course of - and the structure – and nature - of the defence case and arguments.

Any non-corrupt, self-respecting court - that is, any real court, as opposed to a Potemkin Court - would have – upon hearing Advocate Baker’s confession – dismissed all charges against the applicant, throwing the prosecution case against him out, there and then, as the gross miscarriage of justice and abuse-of-process it was. Moreover, a real court would have indicated it required a serious investigation into the conduct of Baker and the Crown prosecution more generally.

Commissioner Sir Christopher Pitchers – appointed by his conflicted dinning partner Michael Birt - simply ignored Crown Advocate Stephen Baker’s seismic confession – and just carried on - as though it hadn’t happened.

It was as though Commissioner Pitchers was hosting a convivial dinner-party, and Advocate Baker had farted – filling the room with a foul stench  – but host and fellow guests each stoically ignored the concussion and resultant odours – because pretending it hadn’t happened was the polite thing to do – and hoping that no-one else had noticed.

This applicant noticed.

This applicant will not go along with the pretence.

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 6

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Today’s liftings from the lever-arches – and bulletins from the boxes.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON # 6

“The conflicted magistrate Bridget Shaw repeatedly refused defence requests for disclosures of evidence; for example, refusing to assess, and recommend to the prosecution disclosure of any of the evidence relevant to the defence abuse-of-process application.

Thus – notwithstanding stark and obvious abuses-of-process at the outset – just for example, the direct, political and personal contamination of the individual who ordered the prosecution and charging, William Bailhache – the applicant was prevented from making an effective abuse-of-process argument at all stages.

A very clear, extensive and fully argued disclosure list was prepared by the defence at the outset and sent to Advocate Robin Morris. The conflicted Bridget Shaw colluded with the prosecution throughout in denying the defence access to the vast majority of that material.

Bridget Shaw repeatedly and continuously obstructed and denied the calling of virtually every defence witness.

For example – it was necessary as a part of the abuse-of-process application to call the Attorney General William Bailhache – and the illegally suspended Police Chief Graham Power. The defence issued a summons to subpoena Bailhache – but Bailhache heard about this from his friend – and Michael Birt’s subordinate, Judicial Greffier Michael Wilkins – and quiet extraordinarily – simply told Wilkins not to issue the summons.

Even more extraordinarily - Wilkins obeyed Bailhache’s instruction.

When the failure to issue the summons of her friend William Bailhache, by Wilkins was later raised in court by this applicant, rather than seeing Wilkins’ conduct for the grossly improper action it was, Bridget Shaw endorsed this interference with justice – and refused to allow the defence to call the witnesses.

Further – and at the conclusion of the prosecution - Bridget Shaw had supposed “contempt of court” charges brought against the applicant - quite extraordinarily, with less than 24 hours notice – refused to allow the applicant to reserve his plea – refused to allow him an adjournment to prepare a defence against them – proceeded to find him ‘guilty’ – refused to allow an adjournment to enable him to prepare a mitigation plea – refused to grant him bail pending appeal – and had him imprisoned, there and then.

This for charges the applicant had had less than 24 hours notice of.

[In general terms, the conduct of magistrate Bridget Shaw is widely regarded as wholly bizarre. For example, in a recent, unrelated and on-going case of a prosecution for an alleged  minor, technical planning law infraction, Shaw placed the accused local business proprietor on police-bail - a requirement of which was that he report to the police station – once-a-day. This madness went on for two weeks until the bail condition was scrapped by a different magistrate. ]…….”

 “........The Jersey Data Protection Law is approved by her Majesty in Council. It is – to all practical purposes – a copy-&-paste of the equivalent English legislation. Like the English Data Protection Law – it was introduced to do what it says on its face; such purposes include – expressly – and unambiguously – public-interest disclosure provisions, and provisions for the protection of journalism.

It was – plainly – not a part of the “legislative intent” - of the UK parliament – nor of the Jersey parliament – when introducing the Data Protection Laws – to suppress legitimate public-interest disclosure, nor to suppress journalism.

But yet – wholly perversely – and in a way that has no equivalent interpretation, use or enforcement in any other Western democracy – and that by the actual admission and boast of Jersey’s Data Protection Commissioner, and in overt defiance of what the legislation actually says on its face – the Jersey legislation has been abused for just such corrupt and oppressive purposes.

That this has been permitted to occur is a gross, ultra vires failure of the Secretary of State, Privy Council and her Majesty in Council’s oversight function in respect of the approval of primary legislation in Jersey.

If her Majesty in Council approves primary legislation for the Crown Dependency of Jersey – a process which, if it is to be reasonably diligent and competent must examine the said legislation for its basic vires, and to ensure it is compliant with UK treaty obligations, such as the ECHR – such consideration by her Majesty and the advisory apparatus must take the draft law on its face.

If the approval of primary legislation by her Majesty in Council was to knowingly involve the approval of “laws” that said one thing on their face – and which had a plain purpose, and satisfactory safe-guards built in – but which were then going to be abused and applied for other purposes, contrary to the wording of the law, then the process of approval by her Majesty in Council would be a fraudulent process.

However – the reasonable and operative assumption has to be the process of approval by her Majesty in Council of primary legislation is not a fraudulent process – but, rather, it is undertaken objectively and in good faith.

Expanding on that latter view, it is reasonable to assume that when her Majesty in Council gave approval to the Jersey Data Protection Law – which for all practical purposes and insofar as is relevant to these applications, is identical to the UK Data Protection Law – the assumption of her Majesty and her advisors was that the Jersey Law would be applied in accordance with what that law actually says – and its legislative purposes.

But that is not how the Jersey authorities have used the Data Protection Law.  

For corrupt, oppressive  - and frankly dangerous purposes – they choose to ignore entire, vital, sections of the Law – its key-safeguards – such as public interest disclosure and journalism – and have instead invented for that Law entirely unwritten purposes – such as the suppression of opposition politicians, journalists and bloggers – and enabling Jersey’s authorities to corruptly conceal serious crimes.

Further – the Jersey authorities have invented for that Law a power to engage in overt, undisguised discrimination.

The oppressive purposes the Jersey authorities have invented for the Data Protection law – are only applied and enforced – against their opponents.  Dramatic and evidenced examples exist of the oppressive abuse of the Data Protection Law against opposition politicians and writers – which contrast with jaw-dropping examples of failure to apply the law against actual, overt criminals in connection with data abuses, but who happen to be on the side of the Jersey oligarchy.

It is unlawful for her Majesty in Council to permit the Jersey Data Protection Law to be abused for manifestly corrupt, oppressive and discriminatory purposes – purposes which are directly counter to the actual written provisions of the Law – and counter to that Law’s legislative purposes.

Further – the oppressive and discriminatory abuse the Jersey authorities have been permitted to make of the Data Protection Law - quite in addition to simply not being a legitimate purpose of that law, and an abuse of the process of approval by her Majesty in Council – also has the effect of placing the United Kingdom in stark and plain breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

For example – this applicant – and others in Jersey – have suffered, and continue to suffer, human rights abuses directly in violation of:-

Article 3 – Inhuman or Degrading Treatment;

Article 5 – Liberty and Security;

Article 6 – Fair Trail;

Article 7 – Retrospectivity;

Article 8 – Private and Family Life;

Article 10 – Freedom of Expression;

Article 11 – Freedom of Association;

Article 13 – Effective Remedy;

Article 14 – Discrimination.

And Protocol 1-

Article 1 – Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;

Article 3 - Free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

To take merely two of the above-listed Convention Rights – 10, Freedom of Expression, and 14, Discrimination – the overt, continuous and dramatically evidenced abuses of those Rights by the Jersey authorities places the United Kingdom  - and thus the respondent authorities, the Crown, Privy Council and Secretary of State – in clear breach of the ECHR.

It is unlawful for any public authority to breach the provisions of the ECHR.

Those unlawful actions of the respondent authorities are seriously compounded by the plain and obvious lack of any effective remedy – contra Articles 6 and 13 – in the politicised and directly conflicted “judicial” apparatus of Jersey.”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 5

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s quotes from the Claim-Forms – observations for the Draft Orders….

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Stuart Syvret

Extracts from Armageddon: # 5

“…….Yet other examples can be cited; the illegal oppression of this applicant in 1996 by Sir Philip Bailhache when he – wholly unlawfully – excluded me from the legislature for six months, in a criminal attempt to silence and coerce me, so as to protect his friend and senior Jersey Freemason, then Senator Reg Jeune, from the consequences of having his nakedly corrupt actions exposed by this applicant.

On that occasion Sir Philip Bailhache – exclusively and unassailable empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – acted overtly and repeatedly criminally. He engaged in misconduct in a public office, and he repeatedly engaged in a conspiracy to pervert justice.

In many ways that episode is indicative of the criminal dysfunction of the Jersey polity and – of especial relevance in these proceedings - the failed relationship with the authorities in London.

For no matter that Jeune had been caught – red-handed – in an unambiguous act of corruption – and this applicant had done his public duty in exposing  it – the Jersey legislature, the Jersey judiciary, and the Jersey policing function all failed to deal correctly with the matters. In the case of the legislature and the judiciary – both of those corrupted and decadent institutions in Jersey set about – pro-actively – abusing and illegally oppressing this applicant.

In the case of the police, they refused to even investigate the matter in any meaningful way when this applicant made formal criminal complaints to them. But – indeed – if the police had acted lawfully – the prosecution file would have simply landed on the desk of Bailhache and Jeune’s friend – the Attorney General Michael Birt. Therefore – even if there had been a lawful policing function (which there was not at that time) – there was not – nor is there – any lawful prosecution function for a lawful policing function to report to.

This structural ultra vires – which renders the proper rule of law impossible in Jersey – and thus the proper application of the ECHR impossible - is the responsibility of the respondent authorities - the Privy Council, the Crown, and the Secretary of State.

As there is not a “statute-of-limitations” in English - or Jersey - law – those various crimes arising from the notorious LLP Law episode – in which the Jersey parliament became, infamously,  a “Legislature-for-Hire” - remain outstanding - and unaddressed.

It is therefore a part of the cause-of-action in these applications that the respondent authorities put in place an effective policing, prosecution and judicial system, so that such criminal acts can be – and are - lawfully investigated, charged, prosecuted and tried. The commercial hi-jacking of the Jersey legislature for the purposes of introducing the privately-drafted Limited Liability Partnerships Law in 1996 – and then the consequent illegal oppression of this applicant for having done his public duty in exposing it - remains an unaddressed and outstanding episode of brazen corruption.

That episode is also of deep evidential relevance in respect of a broad purpose of these applications – namely, that of inquiring into and reviewing the lawfulness – or otherwise – of the manner in which the respondent authorities discharge their duties to people of the Crown Dependencies.

Plainly – key questions have to be, “are those duties discharged objectively and fairly? Or is the interface between the respondents and the Jersey establishment one of  ‘clientism’?” If that latter – then the situation is unlawful.

Extremely detailed, formal complaints were made in 1996 by the applicant – who had been wholly illegally prevented from taking his seat in the legislature by Sir Philip Bailhache – acting under the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent - and with the support of his de facto party political allies.

That episode remains outstanding – and undressed – and it must be addressed – not least because of the simple seriousness of it; but also it is, after all, a powerfully evidenced criminal enterprise; one which no part – no part at all – of the Jersey apparatus has – or could lawfully – address.

In 1996, the detailed complaints by the applicant against the illegal – anti-democratic – and coercive abuse he was suffering,  were made to the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard. At that time the responsibility for the Crown Dependencies rested with the Home Office, not the Justice Department.  For notwithstanding six months of entirely illegal coercion and anti-democratic exclusion inflicted upon this applicant for doing his public duty and opposing corruption – no response was ever received from the Home Secretary – and no lawfully adequate intervention – to restore good governance or the rule of law ever occurred.

A failure made all the more legally serious give that the Office-holder who led the corrupt oppression against this applicant – Sir Philip Bailhache – was solely empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – issued by her – in London – in a residual executive act. Bailhache was a pure creature of the Crown.

Thus the illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by Bailhache  - were  illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by the Crown.

Qui facit per alium facit per se

The “methodology” and the evidential documentation relevant to that ultra vires failure by the United Kingdom authorities must be examined by the court. Examined – because that episode is of key evidential relevance to the fundamental questions that these applications put before the courts – and examined because the criminal offences remain outstanding – and unaddressed. The passage of time does not diminish or insulate them – nor the fraudulent and misfeasant conducts that in turn facilitated and shielded such conduct at the time.

Fraus omnia vitiat ……..”

 “………Indeed – the problem – that of the actually disturbing lack of “quality” and of “calibre” on the part of the self-sustaining, self-recommending, self-elevating, self-protecting claque of Crown Officers in Jersey – who then receive the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – goes further than the startling political illiteracy  on repeated display. For even though they are lawyers – they frequently display what are frankly jaw-dropping ignorances of even the law.

For example – and in one of the more amusingly Kafkaesque moments of the plain descent into anarchy that has gripped the Crown functions in Jersey during the last six years – the current Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, when opposing one of this applicant’s judicial review applications, argued in open court that “it was not possible for the courts to judicially review decisions and actions of the executive”.

Still – that was not a problem for Solicitor General Howard Sharp – because that was the judicial review application I was forced to make before the conflicted, corrupt judge / Advocate  Julian Clyde-Smith – who quickly stepped-in – and rescued the Solicitor General, and ran his case for him……”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 4

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Here’s today’s extracts from Armageddon - Communiqués from the Apocalypse - # 4 -  an article from the arguments - a flick through the statements-of-fact.

Some first drops from le deluge – which is arriving somewhat more avant - than the après some had reckoned upon.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 4

“………To understand what follows – it needs to be recognised that Jersey is, essentially, a feudal society; an anachronism that has survived for centuries, no matter the thin veneer of modernity. The Channel Islands were the only European territory occupied by Nazis during WWII whose indigenous power-establishments prospered and survived during – and after - those events, untroubled and unchanged. Much of the manifestly surreal dysfunction – the palpable sense of absolute power and reckless invulnerability enjoyed by the local oligarchy today - can be traced back to Crown and United Kingdom failure to hold to account and clean-up the profiteering and corrupted Jersey media, policing, prosecution and judicial functions in the immediate wake of the Occupation. To this very day – the power-structure and apparatus of Jersey is wholly analogous to a feudal “court” – in which political power, patronage, careers and law-enforcement are in the “gift” of the feudal “court” and its “courtiers”. You are “of” the “court”, or one of its vassals – or you are an enemy of the “court” – and will be ruthlessly crushed……..”

 “………Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith:

Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matters raised above – which represent a transcript-evidenced catalogue of sustained and overt judicial corruption almost certainly without equivalent  in modern British history - the conduct of Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith – alone and of itself – represents a collapse in the proper and lawful administration of justice in Jersey.

That this state of affairs remains unaddressed by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State is an unanswerable ultra vires failure of Crown obligations and responsibilities.

One of the most serious and dramatic breakdowns in the rule of law and failure to deliver the protections of the ECHR to have occurred in Jersey is the illegal suspension of the legitimate Police Chief, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.  A corrupt act undertaken by Jersey’s conflicted and lawless public authorities.

Whilst that illegal action was, and is, an abuse of the rights of Mr. Power himself – it is more significantly an abuse of the human rights of most ordinary members of the population of Jersey, who have various Convention rights that depend – absolutely depend – upon the existence of objective and impartial and fearless policing; that is, as opposed to policing that is under the corrupt control of a narrow claque of partisan politicians, powerful criminals, corrupt public officials, Freemasons, assorted spivs - and rapists.

Just as the illegal suspension of the Police Chief represents unlawful failures, omissions and actions by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State – so too does the politicisation and corruption of the Jersey judicial apparatus that failed to protect the Police Chief, and in that failure, failed to protect the rights of ordinary people and the very rule of law.

Following the corrupt and illegal suspension of Mr Power, his copy of a written amendment to his contract – one that guaranteed him legal representation – was removed without due process from a locked cabinet in his office. He was then refused access to the document – or, remarkably - even a copy of it.

This corrupt repression forced Mr. Power into the position of having to represent himself in court when he attempted to judicially review the illegal suspension enacted against him.

When Mr Power’s application came before court, it was heard by Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith – sitting with two “Jurats” – Jill Clapham - and John Le Breton.

Both of the two Jurats were, and are, conflicted.

Jill Clapham is married to a lawyer who worked in the same law firm – Ogier – as Julian Clyde-Smith. The Attorney General Tim Le Cocq, who was representing the Home Affairs Minister against Mr Power’s application is also a close friend of Julian Clyde-Smith – having previously also been a senior partner at Ogier.

John Le Breton is the former deputy headmaster – Vice-Principal - of Victoria College – who had to resign in disgrace from that post for the concealment of many years of child-abuse. Numerous complaints had been made, which were not responded to adequately. Instead, Le Breton and other members of staff went so far as to actually attempt to humiliate and intimidate at least two of the child victims of abuse into withdrawing their complaints. Those matters are detailed and evidenced in the Sharp Report.

Just as in the case of the Pitmans – it is almost beyond words, to describe the monstrous illegality of an individual who is fighting for child-protection, such as the Police Chief, to then find themselves in front of a court that has the child-abuse concealing Jurat Le Breton as a member.

Quiet plainly – Le Breton is wholly conflicted from any kind of case that may involve – in any way - any child protection matter. That aside from the even more obvious point that as the man is clearly unfit to hold any kind of public Office, the most serious and pressing questions must be raised concerning the entire function of the “Jurat” system, its standards of “governance” and its failure to apply “fit and proper person” tests.

Commissioner Clyde-Smith himself is a senior partner at Ogiers – where the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq – and Jill Clapham’s husband – worked for many years.

As did former Jersey Attorney General – currently Bailiff - Michael Birt, a close friend of Clyde-Smith’s;

It is also of general and central relevance to these applications that Michael Birt  has been – on evidenced grounds - directly and publically criticised by the applicant for the unlawful interference in police investigations, unlawful failures to bring necessary charges and prosecutions  – and the unlawful abandonment of other prosecutions; for example the corrupt abandonment of the prosecution of the child-abusing Jane and Alan Maguire.

When the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power, QPM, brought his judicial review application – which was predictably rejected - before court, neither Commissioner Clyde-Smith - nor the two Jurats - declared their conflicts of interest.

In particular – and most seriously – Advocate Clyde-Smith failed to declare the key client-based conflict of interest arising from his private-sector, commercial involvements.

It could be described as laughable - in a grim, Kafkaesque manner – that three such wholly and manifestly conflicted individuals can be permitted to sit as a “court” – to, in truth,  fraudulently pretend to be a court - under the good name of the British Crown – in the 21^st century. But to use such words runs the risk of giving the impression that it is a mere figure-of-speech.  Sadly, it is not.

It is a fact that, increasingly, many hundreds of islanders are – actually - laughing at the palpably fake and absurd nature of what passes for a “judicial” function in Jersey.

There is no indication in any available evidence  - at all - that the respondent authorities - the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State - have met even the basic administrative-law requirement of undertaking “sufficient inquiries” in respect of their obligations for the administration of justice in the Crown Dependency of Jersey.

They actually appear not to know that the judicial function in Jersey is in a state of lawless anarchy, which only continues “its functions” in the eyes of the diminishing number of those who “agree” to pretend along with it, in a kind of charade – a game of “make-believe” in which the participants are supposed to keep their fingers crossed behind their backs, and pretend that this overtly politicised posturing claque of mutually elevating and mutually protecting cocktail party friends are a functioning judiciary – rather than a set of multi-conflicted middle-class criminals who have succeeded in raiding a dressing-up box and accessing the Crown’s bank-accounts.

Let there be no illusions about the gravity of these matters – nor the sheer magnitude of the unlawful failures of the respondents – the Secretary of State, Privy Council,  and Crown. For not only have the respondents failed – grossly – to secure to the ordinary people of Jersey a lawful, functioning judiciary as required by Article 6 – the respondents have also unlawfully failed to ensure the protection of that population’s access to objective, impartial policing.

Not least by – as in this case – permitting a “court” of three individuals all conflicted to a point of jaw-dropping absurdity – to deny the unlawfully suspended Police Chief access to justice.

The involvement of members of that “court” with an extremely powerful individual – who was directly under dramatic police investigation for profoundly serious crimes – until shortly after the illegal suspension of the Police Chief under whose leadership the investigation was taking place  - is, in many ways, all that needs to be said about the plain end of the rule of law in Jersey.

If, indeed, Jersey has ever really had the proper rule of law, in truth – as opposed to a fake, feudal, simulacrum?

The respondent authorities – the Privy Council, the Crown, and the Secretary of State – must answer for these matters in London’s courts.

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 3

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to today’s Extracts from Armageddon - Communiqués from the Apocalypse  - #3 – a dispatch from the dividers – a blast from the bundles – a chorus from the case-law.

Stuart Syvret

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 3

“When considering the above-facts – the history – and all the supporting evidence – it is, frankly, remarkable - in light of Barclay & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 1319 (02 December 2008) – that the respondent authorities have failed to intervene to end the unlawful nature of the Jersey judicial function, and put in place a lawful system.

In the cited  case the applicants were seeking to challenge the promulgation of the Reform Law in the island of Sark on the grounds that aspects of that law were not compatible with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sark, like Jersey, is one of the British Channel Islands, and like Jersey, is a Crown Dependency, with the UK authorities having ultimate responsibility for good governance, the administration of justice, and human rights.

The case refers to the Sark “Seneschal” – the equivalent position in Jersey being the “Bailiff” – and the Sark legislature, “Chief Pleas” – the equivalent in Jersey being the “States assembly.” As with the Seneschal in Sark, in Jersey the Bailiff is chief judge, and president of the legislature.

In the above-cited Court of Appeal judgment, the appellants were unsuccessful on four of the five grounds of appeal. However – and crucially – they succeeded on a fifth.

The successful ground – “Ground 2” in the application and judgment was: -

(2) The functions and powers of the Seneschal under the Reform Law breach Article 6 of the Convention, in particular his dual role as President of Chief Pleas and Senior Judge on Sark.

It should be noted that the unsuccessful respondent  - the Secretary of State for Justice – against who Ground 2 was upheld, chose not to appeal that decision.

In light of that unchallenged judgment - the current judicial function of Jersey is unlawful.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, the lead Judge – Lord Justice Pill – in paragraph 52, found:

“The Seneschal's position as Chief Judge must be seen in the context of his duties in Chief Pleas and also the existence of the power to make other judicial appointments for Sark.”

Having described the context – that of the “Seneschal” being both the speaker of the Sark legislature – and being the head of the judiciary in Sark – Lord Pill went on to address the legal issues.

“57: Whatever the outcome of ground 1, it is submitted that the Seneschal's position as judge is inconsistent, in Article 6 terms, with his legislative and executive duties. His influential political position, it is submitted, will inevitably and legitimately arouse in litigants appearing before him fears about his independence and impartiality.

58: In Starrs v Ruxton [2000] JC 208, Lord Prosser, considering the position of temporary sheriffs in the administration of justice in Scotland, stated, at page 232:

"But I am inclined to see independence – the need for a judge not to be dependent on others – as an additional substantive requirement, rather than simply a means of achieving impartiality or a perception of impartiality. Independence will guarantee not only that the judge is disinterested in relation to the parties and the cause, but also that in fulfilling his judicial function, generally as well as individual cases, he is and can be seen to be free of links with others (whether in the executive, or indeed the judiciary, or in outside life) which might, or might be thought to, affect his assessment of the matters entrusted to him."

That passage was cited by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the Privy Council in Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615, at paragraph 9. Lord Bingham also cited, at paragraph 26, the speech of Lord Steyn in Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, at page 708C:

". . and it is a basic premise of the Convention system that only an entirely neutral, impartial, and independent judiciary can carry out the primary task of securing and enforcing Convention rights."

Lord Bingham concluded, page 1628A:

"The conduct of trials at all stages by an independent and impartial tribunal is in my view recognised by the Convention and the authorities, subject to waiver where that is permissible, as a necessary although not a sufficient safeguard of the citizen's right to a fair trial. It is a safeguard which should not, least of all in the criminal field, be weakened or diluted, whatever the administrative consequences."”

Further - in paragraph 65, Lord Pill  said,  “I do, however, see the combination in Sark of the judicial with the other functions of the Seneschal as inconsistent with the Article 6 requirement to establish by law an independent and impartial tribunal.”

And in paragraph 66, Lord Pill  said, “Sark appears to have been fortunate, in recent years, in not having had substantial litigation, either civil or criminal, but while it seeks to maintain a separate system for the administration of justice, as the Reform Law does, the safeguards for independence and impartiality required by Article 6 must be provided. That includes a consideration of appearances. A judge independent of the legislature and executive is in my judgment required even for the comparatively modest litigation described in the Seneschal's diary.”

And in paragraph 68, Lord Pill said, “The law must provide a structure in which those who do, or who may, come before the court can be confident in the independence and impartiality of the judge.”

The third of the Court of Appeal judges who heard the case was Lord Justice Etherton, who made an important contribution to the judgment when, at paragraph 161, he said:

“A litigant cannot be expected to know whether the Seneschal has been involved in a process within the Chief Pleas which, whether in relation to legislation or an executive matter, might have some direct or indirect bearing on the subject matter of the proceedings. The reasonable assumption would be that the Seneschal probably had been, or at least might well have been, so involved, but the litigant cannot reasonably be expected to have researched and discovered any such involvement. Accordingly, in every case, so far as the litigant is concerned, there exists a possibility of lack of independence and impartiality by the Seneschal acting in a judicial capacity. In view of the inevitably limited knowledge of the litigant about the involvement of the Seneschal in the Chief Pleas on any particular occasion or matter, the problem is not resolved by rights of appeal or judicial review. For those reasons, I consider that the Reform Law gives rise to a violation of Article 6.”

It is worthy of note that the appeal-court judges on that occasion – and the arguments generally – largely focused on what might be termed a “theoretical” consideration of the “possibility” of the Seneschal – in some hypothetical future situation – not being able to meet the test of the appearance of objectivity in the judicial capacity, in the eyes of members of the public, because of his role in the legislature. There was also some discussion of the possibility – the possibility only – that the Seneschal might be politically – and thus judicially – biased against a member of the legislature, should they come before him in his capacity as a judge.

Such mere possibilities – possibilities only, note - with no current examples of any actual such occurrences – were considered more than sufficient grounds for the Court of Appeal to uphold Ground 2 – such is, plainly, the vital importance of the purity of the administration of justice.

Turning to the Jersey judicial function  – the situation would be wholly analogous – save for the fact it is actually worse.

In Jersey the judicial function is  - on unanswerable and extensive evidence - biased and dysfunctional – to the point of undisguised, openly-practised corruption – and direct – express – personally and politically contaminated acts of “judicial” harassment, discrimination and oppression against members of the Jersey legislature.

The failure – the unlawful failure – of the respondent public authorities, the Crown, Privy Council, and Sectary of State to have cured the Jersey system in accordance with their various legal duties and obligations – is so unlawful, it is the tort of misfeasance in a public office. Consider: -

The respondent authorities have known the system was unlawful.

The respondents have known that they had no legal power to act as they have done, to permit the continuance of the unlawful system and its unlawful acts.

The respondents have known that the unlawful acts in question would cause severe harm and losses and damage to people such as this applicant, and similar classes of persons, for example the Pitmans.

The conduct of the respondents - in that regard – even far transcends mere “reckless indifference” which, according to the House of Lords judgments, grounds the tort – and have instead pro-actively participated in the defence and continuance of the unlawful and damaging acts.……” 

“…….Unlike in the USA – where the very highest powers in the land were held accountable by the law – where “the system worked” – as in the Watergate scandal – the true power of the British state and of those individuals working within it at the highest levels, remains unassailable – and hidden in the calculated and cultivated obscurantism of the smoke-and-mirrors of the Privy Council.

The fundamentally problematical arcanery of the Privy Council – ensures that, in any attempt to hold its actions and powers accountable under law, an ordinary litigant is attempting something akin to wrestling with ghosts – in a hall-of-mirrors.

The intrinsically unchallengeable – even unidentifiable and unknowable – problem that is the Privy Council – a kind of mystical fog-bank in the heart of the British  state – was laid-out by Patrick O’Connor QC, in The Constitutional Role of the Privy Council and the Prerogative. (ISBN 978-0-907247-47-0)……”

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 2

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

Welcome to Extracts from Armageddon - Communiqués from the Apocalypse # 2 - a re-mix from the actus reus – a mash-up of the mens rea – a selection of the citings!

A random pick-&-mix selection of The Case Against the Crown.

Stuart Syvret

Extracts from Armageddon # 2

“…….The very fact that Le Breton was able to become a Jurat raises the most dramatic questions concerning the very safety - lawfulness – and Article 6 compliance - of the entire Jurat system.

Any system that is so central to the very administration of justice – but yet which fails to employ basic and effective “fit-and-proper-person” tests – is plainly unsafe.

And if the system can recruit such an evidencedly unfit and wholly compromised individual in Le Breton – who is to say the other Jurats are not similarly unfit – and compromised?

The Jurat system is unlawful on the above-grounds alone – even setting aside the other fatal, structural issues.

But it is nothing less than an outrage - and a grossly unlawful failure by the respondent UK authorities to meet their legal obligations to ensure the good administration of justice, and the application of Article 6 of the ECHR – that Le Breton should have been one of the Jurats involved in the case of the Pitmans.

Further – it is another damming indictment of both the competency - and neutrality – of the presiding judge – Commissioner Sir Charles Gray – that he permitted the tribunal to operate on such a catastrophically conflicted basis.

It is axiomatic, that in a tiny community such as Jersey, any judge presiding over a mixed-tribunal should inquire - at the outset - for possible conflicts of interests of members of the court he or she is about to lead. It requires no great – or frankly even any – legal expertise to be familiar with the basic requirement that the administration of justice must be scrupulously impartial and free of contaminations.

It is difficult to know which is more damning of Sir Charles Gray or illustrative of his incompetence – the fact that he (we must assume) made no such inquiry of his fellow tribunal members at the commencement of the case – or that he has remained silent in the face of the subsequent revelations concerning the gross and ultra vires conflicts of interest on the part of the Jurats?

Deputy Trevor Pitman is one of the very few Jersey politicians to have actively worked to try and combat the wretched history of child-protection failure and child-abuse cover-ups in Jersey.

It is nothing less than staggering – a manifest collapse in the proper objective administration of justice – that the child-abuse concealing Jurat John Le Breton should have had any involvement in the Pitmans’ case whatsoever.

It is even more staggering – and one of the plain necessitating factors in this litigation – that this collapse in the Jersey judicial function has been subsequently drawn to the attention of the respondent authorities – the Secretary of State, Crown, and Privy Council – only to receive a brief, pro-forma ‘brush-off’ in what is plainly a calculated gesture of contempt.

The conduct of the respondent authorities in this matter greatly adds to – and amplifies – and further evidences - the clear and unanswerable grounding of the tort of misfeasance in a public office.” 

EXTRACTS FROM ARMAGEDDON: # 1

COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.

This is the first in an occasional series of pithy postings drawn from the law-suits being launched against the UK Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State for Justice. Those British public authorities – “the respondents” - are responsible for the rule of law, good governance, proper administration of justice, and for human rights, in the British island of Jersey.

They haven’t met those duties.  They’ve helped, supported and shielded the Jersey oligarchy in the maintenance of so much undisguised misfeasance, oppression, criminal brutality and corruption, the island’s actual polity is a criminal enterprise.

So, several overlapping strands of legal challenge are being launched against the respondent UK authorities in the London courts.

Found some of the previous legal postings too long and tedious? Worry not!

Extracts from Armageddon – Communiqués from the Apocalypse – is going to bring you a random selection from the servings - a lucky-dip from the litigation!

Don’t expect this random series of postings to be sequential, or placed in context. I won’t even tell you what sections of the applications they’re taken from; much more fun for readers to speculate.  Some of these posting might only be a couple of paragraphs; I’ll see how the mood takes me.

And henceforth, I’ll be posting an Extract from Armageddon at least once-a-day – until, that is, the Jersey mafia jail me.

Again.

Stuart Syvret
 

Extract from Armageddon: # 1

“Even taken on its own – and artificially viewed as though it were a distinct, “firewalled” apparatus, thoroughly insulated from the political and executive realms, as the judicial function is in the UK – the gross judicial conflicts of interest on display in the Pitmans’ hearing, and the failures to declare them, and the management of these matters by the presiding judge, and then the failure of the head of the island’s judiciary to act on the subsequent complaints – is an un-disguisable collapse in the lawful administration of justice.

But – and further to the ultra vires failures of the respondent Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State - this matter is dramatically amplified in the Jersey context – given the plain, unarguable, politicised and non-Article 6 compliant nature of the judicial apparatus, and its day-to-day involvement in legislative and executive matters. The Crown-empowered – and appointed – judicial function in Jersey is – overtly – Political.

Indeed – the documented examples of overt and undisguised politicisation on the part of the Jersey judiciary are too extensive to list. But for example, the absolutely regular and unlawful interference by successive Bailiffs and Deputy Bailiffs – including Philip Bailhache, Frances Hamon, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – with opposition members tabling of questions, amendments, propositions, reports,  and the obstruction of their statements. Similar nakedly political and biased interference is evidenced, and there to be observed in virtually every States assembly meeting…….”

 
“…….Bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache also illegally prevented the publication of this applicant’s Official Comments Report, which I had prepared for tabling in response to the illegal conspiracy to obstruct me, and remove me from Office as Health & Social Services Minister so as to prevent me from lawfully discharging the legal requirements of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.  The criminal conspiracy in question is witnessed by the former Police Chief Graham Power, QPM.

That one example alone, is illustrative of the “functional psychopathy” of the present Jersey system. No legitimate – nor, frankly, even any formally purported – power exists on the part of Bailiffs or Deputy Bailiffs to edit and censor what members of the Jersey legislature may write and publish in reports to that legislature. Yet – Sir Philip Bailhache – exclusively and unassailably empowered by Her Majesty's Letters Patent – did just that – even though – even though – he himself was directly and expressly conflicted in the matters at hand.

Such conduct and behaviour is simply beyond invention.

Yet – there it is.

Able to be engaged in – under the unaccountable – and wholly unassailable power - of Her Majesty’s executive conferral of Letters Patent……”

 “…….The conduct of current Bailiff Michael Birt – solely empowered by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent - is not one scrap less Political or unlawful.

Birt has – and continues to – mount interference after interference – obstruction after obstruction – in the path of opposition members of the legislature. Indeed – it is something that can only become known and understood after a long exposure to Jersey potentates such as the Bailhache brothers and Michael Birt, who are the beneficiaries of upper-middle-class educations, and thus seem extremely plausible when observed causally or engaged in conversation – but all of these people are startlingly ignorant when one scratches below the surface.

They genuinely appear not to have even the first – real – understanding of the proper  and necessary  requirements of functional democracy. They seem to actually believe that it is lawful and right – for them to take partisan positions in politics – and to interfere with – and obstruct – opposition members……”


“……..In general terms – there is no indication, in the conduct of the Crown Officers and judiciary in Jersey that they have any grasp of such concepts as the ultra vires nature of conflicts of interest – nor any understanding of the vital public importance of the role of checks-and-balances – nor of any grasp of the purposes of a separation-of-powers.
 
It is entirely plausible to imagine the Jersey judiciary being handed copies of The Rule of Law, written by the late Tom Bingham, and them fumbling, mystified at it, as though it were some wholly alien text from ancient outer-Mongolia.

And it does not end.

To cite a current wretched and despicable example – the present Bailiff Michael Birt has – predictably – adopted an wholly partisan position in supporting the Jersey Dean Robert Key, even though that man failed disastrously in a safeguarding case of a vulnerable young woman who had been sexually harassed by a church-warden. Indeed – that episode saw the unwell and poor and deeply distressed young woman being subjected to sudden arrest at her home, jailed – and held for two weeks - before actual formal written statements of criminal complaint had been received - hauled before the disgusting and morally rotten excuse for a “judiciary” in Jersey – where she was told she would remain imprisoned unless “agreeing” to be deported. She was then put on a plane and flown to England – and dumped there in destitution: “problem solved.”

Michael Birt – London-appointed Bailiff and chief judge in Jersey – when exercising the plainly legally absurd power of chairing the Jersey legislature – led a highly politically partisan “welcome” to the Dean Robert Key when he resumed his UK-appointed seat in the chamber.
 
That spectacle – and others like it – are so disturbingly bizarre – are so wholly at variance with even the rudiments – or even any thin pretence – at neutrality and objectivity, frankly questions have to be raised concerning the mental fitness of Michael Birt. He actually appears to be living (as do the Bailhache brothers) in some kind of hallucinatory realm coloured in the shades and spectres of a mediaeval fiefdom.

The point is serious. The personal fitness and actual capacity – or otherwise – of Crown-appointed judges to in fact deliver professional and competent judicial services, is the responsibility and liability of the appointing-authority. There is zero indication in the available evidence that the appointing – respondent – authorities have exercised any such due-diligence since they removed from Office one of their previous appointees, a former Deputy Bailiff Vernon Tomes.

It appears not to have occurred to Michael Birt that the matters involving the evidenced failure in office of the Dean might – in one form or another – come before Jersey’s courts – come before Birt himself – or unavoidably, judges chosen and appointed by him.

Thus – at a stroke – Michael Birt has rendered the entire Jersey judicial apparatus structurally – systemically – now incapable of ever dealing lawfully with any matter that arises from the case of the Dean, the safeguarding failures and the subsequent further unlawful abuse of the victim by the Jersey criminal “justice” system.

That such structural – and self-inflicted case-specific – ultra-vires non-existence of a judicial function in Jersey repeatedly manifests itself, is another unanswerable and damming unlawful failure by the Crown, Privy Council, and Secretary of State.……”


“…….It is clear enough – for all kinds of reasons – that what passes for a judicial function in Jersey is simply unlawful and wholly dysfunctional. But the situation is not even as good as that.

Plainly – the judicial function in Jersey has collapsed - and is in a state of roiling anarchy and lawless chaos.

The emperors have no clothes.

It simply isn’t disguisable any more.”