Sunday, 30 June 2013

Deputy Mike Higgins, Sunday Express, Exclusive and State Media.

Fellow Blogger Rico Sorda and VFC, have once more been recognised, by the National Media,  and have featured in today's edition of the SUNDAY EXPRESS. Also featured in the Express article is Jersey Politician Deputy Mike Higgins who was asked by the paper for a contribution, as a direct result of our previous Blog Posting where we published Deputy Higgins' evidence to the PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE.

Ted Jeory, Home Affairs Editor of the Sunday Express, who  recently visited the island with Author and Investigative Journalist, LEAH MCGRATH GOODMAN, and documentary filmmakers, also published an article on Jersey two weeks ago as featured on Rico Sorda's Blog HERE yet very little, or any of this, has been mentioned in the local State Media.

Today VFC contacted Deputy Mike Higgins and asked if ANY of the local State Media had contacted him as a result of his evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee, or the publications in the Sunday Express. The deputy told us, that he was contacted by a local journalist about the Justice Select Committee and its visit to Jersey. It was reported that the Deputy had made a submission but no details were published of its content and no one has contacted him regarding the Sunday Express article. The Deputy informed us that the only media that has contacted him, in this regard, is National Journalists and documentary filmmakers after reading the articles on this Blog.

As a result of us contacting the Deputy today we were able to obtain the un-redacted document he had sent to the Sunday Express which, for whatever reason, was unable to be published in its entirety and we offer it Exclusively here (below).

Deputy Higgins' submission to Sunday Express (un-redacted)

It is said that the rule of Law is an essential element in a democracy. Parliaments pass laws, the police enforce them and the courts and judiciary deal with those who break them. But what happens when one or more of these institutions fails to do its duty?

Take Jersey, for example. The States of Jersey Police stand accused of: failing to properly investigate a bank for fraud; some civil servants for perjury and others for physical and sexual abuse of children in state care homes; entering premises without a warrant or just cause; playing fast and loose with their surveillance powers, and losing evidence that would help child abuse victims get compensation. They also stand accused of failing to investigate criminal acts allegedly carried out by police officers on other police officers, and of stonewalling all attempts to obtain information and redress. Even the Chief and Deputy Chief of Police are alleged to have perverted the course of justice. But who looks over these guardians of the law. Not the parliament where the Home Affairs Minister when asked if he has called in an external police force to investigate the allegations refuses to answer questions and states that he would like to change the parliament’s standing orders to prevent such questions being asked in future. Not the Data Protection Commissioner who has failed to prevent the abuse of subject access legislation and enforce disclosure.

The lack of accountability and transparency by the States of Jersey Police and the failure of those responsible for overseeing them is seriously damaging the public’s trust in the police, the Island’s parliament, the Data Protection Commissioner and other institutions, such as the Judiciary who also recently faced the ignominy of a judge being jailed for fraud.

"I believe that this should act as a warning to all citizens and politicians on the mainland who believe in democratic accountability. Without transparency in the police, government and a free press with courageous investigative journalists who are prepared to expose these abuses there is the feedstock for corruption. Unfortunately for most people they will only realize how bad it has got when it directly affects them and then it is usually too late.(END).

It should be said, that those accused in this posting will strenuously deny the allegations against them which is why there needs to be an investigation in order to get to the bottom of all this alleged corruption on the island or is it already time for the UK to intervene?

Furthermore, the longer Jersey's State Media attempt to keep a lid on this stuff, the longer the Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) and National Media will be interested in discovering why they choose to keep it buried?


  1. I hope the Sunday Express and other national newspapers start taking a bit more of an interest of the corruption in this Island because the local media turn a blind eye to it and that's why we are where we are.

  2. Readers are encouraged to read THIS and then ask themselves why the State Media would not report on it? Not to mention what's been exposed on this Blog Posting and the Sunday Express article.

  3. Wonder if Sally Bradley QC managed to read a copy of todays Sunday Express?

    If so....

    Blind eye, or taking notes?!

  4. I would comment on the Express page, but I don't waste my time registering for one-offs.....

    "Deputy whose wife was charged and found guilty of vote fraud during a supposedly democratic election"

    Yes, the very Deputy who was unfairly found guilty of helping elderly voters to APPLY for voting forms! What a horrendous offence! And a more "Establishment" candidate did the same thing and got away with it! Thanks for highlighting the very kinds of unlawfulness and corruption that you seek to deny.

  5. Page 2 of the "filthy rag" last night (but not online yet ..... Big Ian? .... please)
    Deputy Pitman using Parliamentary Privilege to ask written question about the secret cost to taxpayers of secret civil case (Super Dysfunction?) brought by our esteemed government, on behalf of third parties, against a certain Ex-health Minister. [I paraphrase]

    It is presumably only because of the current mainland press interest in corruption in Jersey that an elected politician has been 'allowed' to successfully table this question - until ILM changes the law to gag even our politicians .... UNBELIEVABLE !

  6. You never get secret court cases, that statement is a load of nonsense.

    1. "You never get secret court cases."

      Do you think somebody should have let the attorney General know?


      Now that the Court process against former Senator Syvret has concluded; will H.M. Attorney General clarify what has been the total cost thus far, whether public funding was made available equally to all four individuals involved, were they also required to utilise their own funds and was Mr. Syvret given “equality of financial arms”?

      From the information provided, the Attorney General does not believe that the matter referred to in the question is a case in which the Law Officers’ Department has had any involvement and the Attorney General is not from information held in the Law Officers’ Department in a position to provide the information which is sought.

    2. "the Attorney General is not from information held in the Law Officers’ Department in a position to provide the information which is sought."

      Without doubt then, it has to be Data Protection

  7. The old'' does not believe''. Cop out once again. If the AG can not give a definitive answer what hope for Justice?

  8. I am not here to start explaining law to you but you never get secret court cases.
    If they were secret then nobody would ever know about them.

  9. You think the Ag's (non) answer was a cop out?

    It hasn't got a touch on THIS.

    Notwithstanding the comment above "You never get secret court cases." #priceless

  10. I have legal qualifications and you haven't.
    Look up Secret Court cases if all you can do is patronise me?

    1. I bow to your superior legal knowledge, despite the evidence I’ve supplied, which to any fair-minded person says that, this is/was a secret court-case.

      With your legal knowledge could you let us know if it’s not a “public” court-case where nobody is even allowed to know how much it costs, what is it, if not secret?

    2. There is no definition of a secret court case under Jersey Law.
      If you mean a court case held in Camera, these are held frequently and are done so for a reason.
      Generally after an application by the people involved though any defendant can also make an application for it to be lifted.
      I would appreciate it if you would stop antagonising people who are only trying to guide you.

    3. So it’s just semantics then. Using the term “in camera” doesn’t mean it’s not secret does it?

    4. That's your translation but it's not a legal one.
      Like I said if people involved object to a case being in Camera then they can apply to the Court to have it lifted.
      Its really not that complicated.

    5. Exactly what is the “legal” interpretation of in-camera if it’s not secret?

    6. I've answered your question.
      Why not ask the defendant why they did not have the in-camera decision lifted?

    7. I must have missed your answer sorry. You did write "That's your translation but it's not a legal one" you didn't tell us what the "legal one" is.

      I believe "in-camera" to mean "private" what does the legal profession believe it to mean?

    8. Why not ask Syvret?
      I see you are always on his Twitter account or will he not tell you anything for some reason I wonder?

    9. “I see you are always on his Twitter account”
      Ah no, not another stalker!

      “or will he not tell you anything for some reason I wonder?”

      Yeah it’s a secret! Unless you’ve got legal qualifications that is, and then there’s no such thing!

    10. Eh, I follow you on Twitter or would you rather I didn't?

      But if he won't tell you anything whats the point of asking anybody else?

    11. I have asked others who were more forthcoming than Stuart. They also said that they shouldn’t be telling me because it’s a secret trial. On top of this I have read the Hansard of John Hemming MP telling us all about it.

  11. Why now if the case is over can the public not be informed of the amount they have contributed to the case? Simple question requiring an answer.

    1. Hopefully our anonymous legal expert ("You never get secret court cases") can answer that?

  12. In the link you provide above 01:41

    ''In the accounts of the data protection office there is an amount set aside which for the running of their department and as they keep within that budget and its publicly known, no I don't have that figure with me today''


    1. The Data Protection Office has a budget of around £300,000. The SECRET court case, one would guestimate, has quadrupled that, if not more, but we are not allowed to know where the money is coming from even though, in "legal terms" it's not a secret.

  13. Q. How would we know, money is not going into private pockets in this situation.

    A. We wouldn't. Is money buying silence.?

  14. Perhaps readers could submit the question for Deputy Pitman to ask. Then each week he could use one of the permutations submit here.

    For instance leave out the name of Stuart Syvret or add secret court case and syvret together.

    How many permutations of the original question can be found before the AG deigns to answer?

  15. Definition of "in-camera"

    Entire cases may be heard in-camera when, for example, matters of national security are involved. In-camera review by a Judge may be used during otherwise open trials—for example, to protect trade secrets or where one party asserts privilege (such as attorney–client privileged communications). This lets the judge review documents in private to determine if revelation of documents in open court will be allowed.

    What could the National security risk be in this in-camera, or secret (unless you're a legal expert) court case?

  16. One of your readers says:

    "I have legal qualifications and you haven't.
    Look up Secret Court cases if all you can do is patronise me?"

    Oh dear - who is this fool - as though we didn't all know?

    Look - if a court decides X or Y case will be In Camera ("in chamber") then it's a secret case.

    And for a defendant to have an Article 6 compliant opportunity to ask for such a secrecy ruling to be lifted - the court has to be an objective, impartial court; a lawful court.

    An un-arguable prerequisite of which is that the court does not consist of conflicted agents - individuals who are personally known to - let alone chosen and appointed by - the interested parties.

    Do what pass for "courts" in Jersey meet that basic test of vires?

    They're not even on the radar-screen.

    Want a relevant example?

    The court case involving Deputies Trevor & Shona Pitman.

    Members of that tribunal were chosen and appointed by the conflicted Bailiff, Michael Birt;

    Members of that tribunal were personal friends of interested parties;

    Members of that tribunal were directly conflicted in respect of the serious political controversy over the concealment of child-abuse.

    There are very good - rock-solid - time-honoured - established reasons why the administration of justice should be impartial and objective beyond all possibility of taint.

    Because the instant the administration of justice is allowed to be contaminated with conflicts of interest - it ceases to function - in every important sense.

    The Pitmans had zero chance - at all - of ever receiving a fair, objective - lawful - hearing before that Jersey "court".

    Just as would be the case of any person seeking to overthrow the secrecy by which so many crimes are concealed in Jersey.


  17. How much from the data protection commissioners budget was spent with taxpayers funding on a private civil case 2012 - 2013

  18. Given that the Guernsey taxpayer now contributes to that budget, and the Guernsey Press is actually prepared to go against the establishment and ask tough questions, perhaps we should ask the Guernsey Press to find out?

    Voice, you know they are on twitter. Do your worst!

  19. This is the real fact. We know every tax payer contribute the national budget so it is impotent.

  20. Oh, a clever legal expert is here to correct the populace.

    But no lofty explanations will change the situation. There is no democracy, no acceptable balance of power, where there is no remedy for injustice. Jersey still has no fair transparent process of remedy for much of the observable injustice. No adequate checks and balance on the misuse of secrecy, and to ensure the equal enforcement of laws, just this endless equivocating pseudo-legal drivel under the guise of establishment-protecting classist arrogance of the worst kind. It reminds me of Ian LeMarquand's meaningless non-answers. Jersey's class-based, elite protection exposes itself as far more unapologetically transparent than the judicial/political system itself.