Friday, 18 April 2014

Sir John Nutting QC Appointment.

In October 2013 VFC published a Blog explaining the Regulation of Investigation Powers Law (RIPL) Which can be read HERE. 

With the recent appointment to Commissioner of the Royal Court, John Nutting QC, a number of fundamental questions arise. As reported in the previous posting on this subject (above link) Mr. Nutting's Official Role was, and possibly still is, Commissioner appointed to scrutinise intelligence gathering of secret means of telephone interceptions and bugging conducted by the police, customs and UK Intelligents agencies such as MI5/MI6 and others. 

Mr. Nutting QC has seen the transcripts of intercepted phone-calls/transcripts and audio recordings of bugging devices. 

What checks are in place to ensure he is not conflicted in his new role, indeed in his previous role as a Jersey Appeal Court Judge?Everything he would have seen in his role as commissioner under RIPL, and other laws, would not be admissible in a court of law. For example intercepted telephone communications between criminals cannot be used as evidence in a court. But in his previous(?) role Sir John Nutting will have seen large volumes of that material. Which as a judge he is not permitted to know anything about.......But he knows EVERYTHING about! 

From a layman's point of view this seems to raise a serious compromise. How can defendants and defence lawyers be sure that they will get a fair trial when the judge may have seen intelligence that is not allowed to be used in court? Article 6 ECHR which gives everyone "a right to trial by a fair and impartial court" surely must come in to play here? 

Who has ultimate oversight/responsibility  of this arrangement/appointment? Who is Sir John Nutting QC accountable to? What was the appointment process? Who was part of  the appointment process? Who is going to ensure defendants Article 6 rights are protected?  The discredited, and disgraced, local State Media is STILL doing what it always does and churned out another Establishment Press Release without questioning it (Nutting appointment). When a growing number of concerned Islanders do not trust, what has been described as, our corrupt and politicised "JUSTICE" SYSTEM why would the State Media choose not to question this appointment? In the most recent Island Social Survey, it has been reported that 50% of those surveyed didn't trust the "justice" system, and 60% didn't trust the local "accredited" (State) Media and it has once more been left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) to question authority/The Party Line on an issue so fundamental as a right to a fair and impartial hearing. Perhaps those with a legal brain could help answer some of these questions?

Team Voice would like to take this opportunity to remind readers of the (hard fought for) Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry that is currently under way. We are in constant, and constructive, dialogue with the panel and as readers would expect we plan to submit a substantial amount of evidence to the Inquiry. Those who wish to submit their own evidence can do so by e-mailing the panel directly here info@jerseycareinquiry.org or by visiting its website HERE.
For anyone needing help or support in giving evidence/deciding to give evidence or not or general support and advice the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) can be contacted by e-mail at jsycareleavers@jerseymail.co.uk or telephoned at 01534-738351.







11 comments:

  1. Vfc, a very thought provoking blog post. I do find it strange that non of the Jersey Msm question, or look at these appointments. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who makes the appointments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe it is the unelected Bailiff.

      Delete
  3. John Nutting knows exactly what Mike Bowron has been up to with the RIPL law and should not be in this conflicted role as commissioner but this is after all the corrupt jersey way. If the state media was doing its job it would be investigating Bowron's application of RIPL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If a defendant is in court before John Nutting QC and Mr Nutting has listened to covert recordings of the defendant in a completely unrelated case how is the defendant or his lawyers to know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're not to know what Mr. Nutting has seen or heard on any case related or not. That is why his position is so untenable and why the State Media should be questioning Press Releases rather than regurgitating them.

      Delete
  5. I'm gobsmacked. This is beyond the pale for separation of powers as well as for maintaining an appearance of no conflict of interest. Terribly important to know who makes the appointments, too. This seems well set up to allow potential conflicts of interest to remain hidden and unquestioned, consolidating insider power even further into the hands of a few who have no fear of accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For this reason - as well as all of the other, very obvious, ones - Sir John Nutting would be fatally conflicted in any involvement in any judicial matter concerning me.

    Stuart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nutting is conflicted PERIOD. It's not just against you Stuart.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, indeed....I made the point simply because it can only be a mater of time - and probably not very much time - before I'm again in front of the Potemkin village that is Jersey's "judicial" function and the "judge" will probably be Nutting.

      Well, it's either him or the equally conflicted Michael Beloff - the "judge" who produces "special pleading" for Jersey's non-Article 6 compliant "judicial" function, of the very kind that's already ultra vires on the ECtHR case-law precisely because such "special-pleading" is never a valid excuse for failure to deliver an absolute Right such as Article 6.

      You know, I don't think these people have yet woken up to the fact that plebs can read - let alone the existence of the web.

      Stuart

      Delete
    3. From the available evidence, they have not fully processed the impact of the people knowing how horribly conflicted these officials are. Nor have they managed to stanch the flow of the hard evidence internationally. If there were outsiders (without a vested financial interest) who believed Jersey was a functional, law-abiding democratic jurisdiction, there can't be many left now. Ironic, given that Walker, the Bailhaches, and their ilk were determined to protect Jersey's international reputation at all costs. I'm confident interested individuals most outside Jersey are aware that vast sums have been nefariously spent to conceal nefarious coverups, which simply become more and more obvious..

      Delete