Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Jersey Jurat Candidate Tim Kearsey.




A Jurat is a Lay Judge who sits with Commissioners/Bailiffs/Deputy Bailiffs/Judges in the Royal Court of Jersey. The Jurat's task is to judge on the facts of a case, need no legal training for the post, and are elected by an Electoral College consisting of Lawyers and politicians.

There is a train of thought that the Electoral College is no more than an "Old Boys Network" and the elections are just a formality in that the candidate who the Establishment want elected gets the post. Regular readers will be aware it is VFC's opinion that our "justice" system is politicised and corrupt and is in dire need of "a good clean out." How much of a role is played by Jurats is, as yet, unclear, due to the secretive nature of the election and indeed the candidates.

In what is believed to be a first for Jersey we (Citizens Media) have interviewed a candidate for the post. We are not aware of this ever having been done previously, either by Citizens Media, or the local State Media, and feel privileged to have been granted the interview and able to bring our readers another first and another exclusive.

Candidate Tim Kearsey is a down-to-earth 41 year-old working class man with a social conscience and a desire for reform. He is breaking the mould when it comes to the usual line-up of candidates who tend to be upper middle class (former Victoria College students) and pensioners or not far off pension age. He wants to engage the public with the role and make them aware of what it entails and what a great start he has made by engaging with Citizens Media...........Or any media.

For those who would like to learn more about the role of the Jurat, the Establishment line can be viewed HERE. If you want to learn more about the role, and the Jersey "justice" system in general we recommend readers/viewers take a look at what Sir Geoffrey Nice QC writes about it HERE.

Team Voice wish Candidate Kearsey the best of luck with his election campaign and thank him for taking the time out to engage with Citizens Media. Unfortunately we believe the chances of him being elected, and zero, are about the same. The election is a mere formality and the post has already been decided but nothing ventured nothing gained.




37 comments:

  1. jurat paul Nicole is the next lieutenant bailiff.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article Daily Mail today 22.4.2015,page 16 Stephen Glover on the establishment cover up/s on child abuse in the UK

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the candidate or Team Voice able to assure us that he has no history of disregarding video evidence of child abuse; or of writing in support of paedophile school teachers such as in the infamous Jervis-Dykes/Le Breton case? It would be too shocking for words to discover that even now in 2015 another Jurat candidate could feel it acceptable to write that someone who had groomed and abused young boys and even filmed himself doing so had served Victoria College (or any school) with 'outstanding competence and conscientiousness'? Many thanks and well done for yet another 'ground-breaking- interview.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course the post of Jurat is not compatible with accepted standards for the administration of justice. Whilst it may have been capable of being so some centuries ago, that time long past. Nevertheless for as along as the community of Jersey is saddled with this archaic nonsense, it's admirable this gentleman is seeking to damage-limit the position by bringing a new, ethical approach.

    I wondered if Mr Kearsey would be good enough to answer, through you, questions from readers? I can think of several now, and I may ask further questions. I would imagine other readers may wish to do the same?

    1: Would Mr Kearsey inform us whether, in the event that any conflict of interest - actual or something which had the possibility of appearing to be a conflict of interests - coming to his attention as Jurat in a case, he would take steps to ensure that potential conflict was publicly declared in the court records and he would recuse from hearing the case?

    2: Does Mr Kearsey agree that a fully published declaration of interests - such as that which must be made by politicians - should be obligatory for Jurats and all members of the judiciary in Jersey?

    3: Does Mr Kearsey agree that a fully published declaration of past and current links with or membership of organisations - for example businesses - or Freemasonry - should be obligatory for Jurats and all members of the judiciary in Jersey?

    I thank Mr Kearsey in advance for his time.

    A Modern Lawyer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Mr Kearsey is up for answering questions I would like to know if he does become a Jurat would he take part in a criminal exercise like being part of a secret politicised kangaroo court and put a super injunction on somebody who is exposing large scale pedophilia and its concealment on the island?

      Delete
    2. The poster who raises the perplexing question about the Jersey Jurat system's murky past, not least being the mentioned incredible permittance of John Lyndon Le Breton to join the ranks, is barking at the most important of trees. Jurats simply must be of unquestionable honesty and commitment to justice, and especially so given that they are entirely untrained.As history shows this is sadly just not the case. Like others I would argue that elections for such a role, particularly when the vote hinges on such a small and Establishment entrenched group of people as it does is completely inappropriate. I think it was one of the so called 'looney left' who a couple of years ago quite rightly stated that Jurats should be selected on merit and by the Appointments Commission. This is something I agree with whole-heartedly. The bottom line is of course, and I mean no offence to the candidate, that Jurats really should be scrapped all together. The system is both outdated and unaccountable.

      Delete
    3. I fully support the comment above. Our whole justice system needs to be modernised and put quite bluntly cleaned up.

      Delete
    4. Can it really be correct that even if a person has a predilection, and even a record for, getting their Jon Thomas out in public the laws regarding Jurats are so outdated that such a person would still be able to stand?

      Delete
    5. Reference the above comment. I hear that in the UK if you happen to be a Judge this will actually get you some Brownie points and almost certainly the job. You will probably also be invited to sit in judgement of any naughty left-wing political figures here in Jersey?

      Delete
    6. @ 19:02 says 'Reference the above comment. I hear that in the UK if you happen to be a Judge this will actually get you some Brownie points and almost certainly the job. You will probably also be invited to sit in judgement of any naughty left-wing political figures here in Jersey?'

      What are these comments alluding to? There would seem to be something underlying the observations but I expect many readers share my curiosity as to what that is? Could someone explain please?

      Thanks

      Delete
    7. I believe this has something to do with a court case that former senator, and Health Minister, Stuart Syvret was involved in where the judge had been accused of flashing or something similar.

      Perhaps Stuart could elaborate?

      Delete
    8. Yes.

      Those events - and the two judges involved - and just how they came to be hearing the case in question - and how - on the evidence - they "got" it so wrong - and the amplifying consequences which flowed - and what all of that shows about British Establishment corruption - and the denial of protection to the vulnerable - forms a key chapter in the written evidence I'm supplying to the UK child-abuse public inquiry.

      Stuart Syvret

      Delete
  5. VFC, have you and survivors and other Jersey campaigners been following the Hillsborough disaster inquiry? If not I think you should be.

    Here’s the latest report in today’s Guardian:

    Hillsborough police altered evidence to obstruct official inquiry

    Here’s some of what it says:

    “A South Yorkshire police chief superintendent who oversaw the changing of officers’ accounts about the Hillsborough disaster has admitted that vital factual evidence was removed which “impeded” and “kept in the dark” Lord Justice Taylor’s official inquiry. Donald Denton was giving evidence at the new inquests into the deaths of 96 people at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. However, he rejected an accusation from a lawyer representing bereaved families that he “defended South Yorkshire police against the truth” at the Taylor inquiry.

    “Denton headed a team that vetted officers’ accounts of the disaster and suggested amendments to them before they were sent to Taylor. He admitted that facts removed from the accounts included three officers’ recollections”.

    Have you thought about how you will stop the Jersey child-abuse inquiry from being manipulated in a similar way?

    Think about it. It is much more likely that a cover-up could be carried out in Jersey than it was for the Hillsborough cover-up. Even 20 years ago there were very serious obstacles, such as independent courts, prosecutors, coroners and media to deceive, but the cover-up worked for 2 decades. Jersey, even today, has none of those safeguards. And to compound that problem even further, your present public inquiry doesn’t have representation for the different opponents of the Jersey Establishment to challenge ‘evidence’ and cross-examine witnesses.

    How can Jersey survivors and anyone to be honest, have any confidence at all that the evidence, such as old statements, letters, e-mails, faxes, file-notes and all those kind of things, for example from the Jersey Police and your corrupt prosecutors, have not had “facts removed” before being given to your current public inquiry?

    It’s a serious question. What procedural safeguards are there? I’m not aware of any in the Jersey situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree there are no real safeguards in place and this COI could turn out to be a whitewash/cover up. The fact is that we just don't know.

      For my part, despite some of its disgraceful behaviour in the past, and its very strange decision to allow one witness to appear as three different people, I have been to a number of hearings and have been impressed with its direction.

      Strangely enough the person who should take all the credit for my growing confidence in the COI is Senator Philip Bailhache. When he started scare-mongering, telling anybody who would listen, that the Inquiry could cost £50m and offered absolutely no evidence to back up those claims, it grabbed my attention.

      Then after he seemingly attempted to intimidate a witness to the Inquiry, defend a paedophile, and let slip that he has almost certainly seen the confidential statement submitted to the COI by former Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper my confidence grew that little more on the COI.

      It looks to have Senator (and former AG/Bailiff) Philip Bailhache very worried. That, to me, suggests it is doing its job.

      Has this COI got a great number of faults? Yes indeed it has but show me an investigation of this magnitude that couldn't be pulled apart? It is the only gig in town and has to be given the opportunity to do its job. Time will tell if it ends up being a cover-up but in the meantime I suggest it could be held to account sooner/easier if it had the evidence and ignored it rather than not having the evidence at all.

      Delete
  6. I'm hearing he didn't get the job, can we have an update please?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does anyone know who the other candidates are? i would imagine the Old Boys network will not be allowing Mr Kearsey to just walk into the role unopposed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Kearsey is having problems leaving comment and has asked that I publish the below for him. Due to its size it will be in two parts.

    “Thank you for each and everyone of your questions.

    The nature of what you are all asking is indicative of the magnitude of feeling about the island's justice system and historic handling of abuse, as one of your main topical areas of questioning. My journey has sometimes been a difficult one in being in relationships and friendships with victims of physical and sexual abuse. Not least do I recognise the affect this has had on their lives but the manner in which they are considered lesser persons for being the victims. This is one of the biggest outrages in modern human rights. This includes a once good friend who was a victim of Jervis Dykes who will probably never reach his potential, as an intelligent and dignified man, thanks to a school that neglected his complaints, saw a damaging affect on his sexuality and relationships, and gave no recourse for justifiable compensation.

    The island is a manifestation of internal perception whilst trying to manage its desire to be an esteemed offshore finance centre (is there such a thing?). I am sure once a problem presents itself that recognising those that are handling the truth is the best course of action. Seeing an immediate investigation without limitations and boundaries, compensation of determinable merit and a full overhaul of the child and vulnerable persons protection mechanism was the only answer. Instead - only the authorities in this island could only turn Haute De La Garenne into a holiday centre - would you or anyone else who has access to media in the world really want to stay there? Blind and greedy! Whilst coaching schools cricket in Uganda recently a Ugandan Coach said to me. "Are you really from Jersey - you are brilliant with children?". A lovely man - but you know what he meant. I would like to think of every crisis as an opportunity. In Jersey to become a world leading jurisdiction in the safeguarding, protection and development of young and vulnerable people. Alas whilst the current hierarchy fail to recognise the outside perception and in doing so recognising the truth. The island continues to have a fettered and corruptible justice system on the basis that its' attempted cover ups have worked and salvaged it's unmistakable god - the £.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part Two;

      "Masons are a network like many others, that make such an objective (like child protection) difficult to change. A kind, passionate lawyer I once knew became a crown child protection lawyer - within weeks he was asked to become a mason and was no longer the honest man he once was. Immediately, a power centric ego was present and a distinct lack of integrity present in his professional qualities. That again, speaks volumes for the manner in which such networks can work in the island.

      There are many other issues in the justice system that carry strong weight but I hope this writing gives you some understanding of my experiences and perspective. If you have an inclination to vote and I am still in the island - I will be running for office at the next States election. My education, experiences and ideology I know would be a catalyst for change, and in the very least stop the island from the financial ruin many of the same wilfully blind politicians and justice system components, have allowed to already start to take effect; save for their own pockets. I am sure that with some strong policies of strategic value; then the Reform Party can become a viable alternative to the demise set upon ordinary people by the current incumbents.

      If you feel like raging anti abuse campaigners then you are not. To me YOU are just normal people who don't allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes - and hope that it all goes away because you have a mortgage and a car to think of. Ordinary people are just controlled by the tribalistic frailties of being too scared to come out in support of the truth most of the time. Be proud of your beliefs and efforts - to see that this island is put right and that Jersey people can one day stand tall. You in particular.

      Thanks again and hope to you in your efforts.

      TK.”

      Delete
  9. Haute De La Garenne is being disguised as a holiday/accommodation centre. Better than keeping it empty at this time.
    But how much is it costing to keep open and empty?!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "within weeks he was asked to become a mason and was no longer the honest man he once was."
    Its either the Bailhache brothers, or the committee of inquiry to go in the next few months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's very naïve.

      Even if - and it is a big 'if' - the disagreements over scope and scale are genuine, the Bailhache Brothers and the Committee of Inquiry are nevertheless on the same 'team'.

      Look, use your brains, yes? All of these these people are wealthy, powerful lawyers, whose ultimate shared objective is making lots and lots of money, out of different sets of word-games & charades - pre-rigged at diner-parties - which is all the 'law' is in Jersey.

      If the Committee of Inquiry (let's be honest and not speak of those diversionary three puppets) - which is Eversheds - were genuine, they would have resigned by now. In fact, resigned months ago, it being plain the task they signed-up to do has already been rendered impossible by various acts and omissions of the Jersey Establishment.

      Eversheds are simply the latest - in the long, long line of mugs - of patsies - to have been reeled-in and compromised by Jersey's sleazy collection of feudal gangster morons and functional psychopaths. They've been 'compromised' now, so they - like the rest of fools from the last eight years - must now either hang with the Bailhache Brothers, Birt, Clyde-Smith and Le Cocq or hang separately.

      The plain fact: Eversheds AND the Bailhache Brothers go - in the coming weeks - or you people have lost.

      Lost.

      You will have wasted all these years of suffering and of effort.

      Jersey's victims of child-abuse will never get justice until the apparatus ultimately responsible for the failures to protect them from abuse and hold the island's public authorities to account - the Crown's corrupt judicial function in Jersey - has been suspended and cleaned-up.

      You are all wasting every effort you have ever put into this war, until you demand at first base, a lawful, functioning judicial system.

      I mean, really? What on Earth do you think you're all doing? Imagining a supposed 'public inquiry' will gain you justice, whilst the 'legal environment' in which that 'public inquiry' operates is that run by a corrupted judiciary?

      Time to grow up boys and girls. Time to stop being fools and tilting at windmills. Western society has spent many hundreds of years devising and establishing the proper rule of law. But you all seem to think none of those fundamentals matter, and that you can re-event a better wheel - by stepping back in time 800 years and 'negotiating' with feudalism.

      Which is what your present stance amounts to.

      Stick to your current path, and you will lose.

      And frankly you'll have no-one to blame but yourselves.

      It's as simple as that.

      Delete
  11. Knock it down and build social housing! Really do you not feel presence in buildings or their sense of history - must be me!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Serious questions need to be asked about the continuing role of the Jurats but unfortunately it will take many years before the present composition of the States Assembly has altered enough that it will even consider reforming things - and even then who is to say that the future composition of the States will be any more reform-minded than it is now?

    First question: how does one apply to be a Jurat and which law sets out the procedures for applying?

    Jurats are supposed to be the arbiters of fact and the judge advises them on the law. After all, this is the situation with trial by jury- the jurors are the arbiters of fact and the judge does not interfere with their fact-finding deliberations. He doesn't retire into the jury room with the jurors. However, in the case of trial by Jurats (i.e. the inferior or the superior number of the Royal Court) this distinction is violated, with the Judge retiring to deliberate on the facts alongside the Jurats. Therefore if the role of Jurat was abolished tomorrow and replaced by ordinary jurors (as I would like to see happen), the judge would immediately lose his ability to interfere with the fact-finding deliberations.

    Currently, so I am led to understand, it depends as to whether the offence you have been charged with is a common law one or a statutory one. If it is common law, you can be tried by jurors (in effect, your peers, which could theoretically include a benefits claimant, a binman, someone from an ethnic minority, etc.). However, if it is a statutory offence, this elite group of Jurats with close connections to the Jersey Establishment sit in judgment on you. Which would you prefer?

    Furthermore, statutory offences will only continue to increase with time and common law offences will gradually decrease. Very often, statutory law will be used to repeal common law offences and replace them with modern, statutory equivalents. Therefore the number and range of trials which fall under the remit of the Jurats is only going to keep increasing in future, while the already-limited influence of ordinary jurors in the justice system is going to continue to diminish. Is this what we all want?

    I shall leave you with a wonderful old quote from Lord Patrick Devlin which sums up my feelings about the jury (but NOT Jurats): "Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives."

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is no excuse/justification for Jersey's Jurat system. It is bent. It is archaic. It is there only to maintain the age old order of Establishment corruption. By attempting to join it - even with good intentions - Mr Kearsey is helping sustain it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have never questioned the role of the Jurat only the archaic system of justice it serves. I'm 41, have two degrees, 3 professional qualifications, maintain fair treatment even to my enemies and opposers in my ideology, career and personal life. What I will say is those qualities would have been a step in the right direction for the public I would have served. I am sure that the public would feel safer and more understood by my beliefs than certainly one of my antiquated opponents. What I am seeing in Jersey, is a culture of self denial, selfish ideals, tribalistic protectionism and preservation of collectivism amongst the ruling classes. On occasions and with recognition of the same I am 10 years ahead of the game. I can tell you know that PR machine of the political establishment is still estranged from the truth about the island and how it has functioned historically. They cannot modernise because they are two far down the river with a broken paddle!!! Jersey was spoilt with wealth by Cyril Le Marquand and it has lived an arrogant, unaccountable and priveliged existence. Money has made the island believe it is above reproach. The economics simply do not add up and the total rhetoric about how the finance industry is turning a corner every month is testimony to how the likes of Geoff Cook cannot stand being told that aggressive tax planning, ignorance towards potential tax evasion and blatant flouting of the rules WILL not be tolerated by the G20 anymore. And yet still a third Finance Centre is built when there is sufficient office space. I'll apologise partly on using a forum about the welfare of children to talk about economics but fundamentally I believe it was always the very same reason (the Finance Industry) - the ruling Elite attempted to cover up HDLG and other instances of neglect and abuse up in the first place!!! Now ask again who is naive...when the world knows how corrupt the island's 'elite' have been in preventing the truth coming out. I want change and want to use my experience, thinking and education to be amongst those who want and can influence the same. TK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When exactly is the election for the new Jurat? i haven't seen anything about it other than here?

      Delete
  15. I would suspect that Mr Kearsey was not overly surprised or disappointed that he did not get elected as a Jurat. Fair play to him however for putting his name forward.

    However, and more importantly he has 'engaged' on here and answered questions honestly and openly, and from these answers I would say that personally he is exactly the sort of person I would wish to see elected to the States in the future and I hope he keeps a high profile in this regard.

    It is very early days, but with the current feelings amongst the population at this moment in time on many issues, he could do well to keep his voice heard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Gillian - your words are encouraging and comforting. Taking a testimony of my own life experiences and knowledge forward I really hope could be a catalyst of change in the island. I can't live the lie that the problems will go away - but belief before criticising that we must be mindful of solutions to the decline of the island. The cannabilistic culture still prevails amongst many and quite what the elite are protecting from a soulless existence is beyond my strong economic and ethical mind at times!!!

      Delete
  16. I have to get up at five o'clock on a Wednesday to go and sign the sex offenders register.
    If the BBC get there before me, I will be waiting all f***ing day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Comment @ 18:20. Don't get your comment. Please explain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like a joke to me.

      Delete
  18. Dave Angel, Eco-Warrior29 April 2015 at 01:38

    Slightly off-topic (ok, a mile off topic) but today I saw some comedy gold on one of Jersey's legendary Facebook politics sites. Indulge me, please.

    Former Senator Terry Le Main posted a very long rant about Guernsey's waste being shipped over to be burnt in Jersey's insanerator at La Collette. He says:

    "DO YOU THINK JERSEY SHOULD ACCEPT GUERNSEY'S WASTE FOR A FEW BUCKS ? ? ?

    Well I don't because it will do no good whatsoever to our reputation as a beautiful clean Island as advertised to the Tourism Industry, here we have placed our incineration process /factory at the gateway to St. Helier ,our capital, here where a huge amount of passenger traffic is generated, where our Marinas are situated, serving visiting yachts to our Island, where huge amounts of public monies are proposed to be spent regenerating the old Harbours and La Folie / Havre des Pas Pool / Fort Regent etc..and there are many people living within walking distance of the Incinerator and yet we want to sell ourselves for a few quid to be the dirty, stinking putrid waste dumping ground of the Channel Islands..oh and let us remind ourselves that we have for several years asbestos and industrial chemicals in containers rotting away on this site...and let no one tell me that this mess will not if not already causing health problems to nearby residents..and in the real world that I live in and meeting ordinary people on a daily basis this will become a real worry not only on health grounds but on reputation as the dumping ground of the Channel Islands..being realistic anything mechanical will breakdown and then our Guernsey friends stinking putrid waste will be stored at La Collette awaiting disposal and them cargo boats from Guernsey will keep coming and yes we the people of Jersey will pay dearly and by then our dear Ministers and TTS Minister will be gone, retired from the States and all cosyied up in their nice houses far away from La Collette...all you guys need to stop moaning about the the proposed International Finance Centre and concentrate on this bomb ready to explode if we take our neigbours waste...
    If this was to happen just watch our Tourism industry dramatically reduce or go away for ever..

    THEREFORE I TOTALLY OPPOSE OUR TTS MINISTER IN PUSHING THIS PROPOSAL UPON THE RESIDENTS OF JERSEY>>
    "

    Guess who voted in favour on the incinerator in July 2008? One Senator Terence John Le Main:

    http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/Pages/Votes.aspx?VotingId=1526

    We've got long memories Tel Boy. It's a bit late for you to go all "Swampy" on us, old boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You only just noticed?
      Terry Le Main is permanently on Facebook re-writing history, attacking the progressives and trashing citizens media.

      Delete
  19. Looks like he is canvassing for a seat in that district, defo needs to start early especially as he supported it in the 1st place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just remember this is the same man? who jumped to his feet and hurled abuse at 'The Father of the House' Senator Stuart Syvret (Health Minister) when Mr. Syvret tried to make his Christmas speech outlining his total lack of faith in the Islands child welfare. As we all know only too well Syvret had his microphone cut off by the (un-elected) Philip Bailhache. I am totally convinced that if Senator Syvret had been this Islands 1st Chief Minister (instead of the flunky we got) he would have brought all the abuse out into the open, and put this island and it's ordinary caring people back on the right road, unfortunately we had the exact opposite and that is why we are in the mess we find ourselves. If Mr. Le main is thinking of once again trying to become a States member, well God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. God help us Mr Le Main is an expert on 'the Jersey way!!'

    ReplyDelete
  22. Terry Le Main won't be standing again.
    Forget it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.