Monday, 23 April 2012

Deputy Montfort Tadier on "Jersey Justice."

Deputy Montfort Tadier has agreed to be the first live guest on our new TV Channel which will be broadcast HERE this coming Thursday the 26th April 2012 at 7pm (BST).


The Deputy will be discussing, and answering questions on, an amendment he lodged in February 2011 concerning the up-coming Committee Of Enquiry into the decades of Child Abuse that was able to go on in Jersey's State run institutions.


Below is Deputy Tadier's amendment, which simply put, is that not only has justice to be done, but justice has to be "seen" to be done.

STATES OF JERSEY

HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE: REQUEST TO COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (P.19/2011) – AMENDMENT (P.19/2011 Amd.) – AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 23rd February 2011
by Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE: REQUEST TO COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (P.19/2011) – AMENDMENT (P.19/2011 Amd.) – AMENDMENT

PAGE 3 –
After point 6, insert the following point –

“7. Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference at any level?”.

DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE

P.19/2011 Amd.Amd.

REPORT
In its Report (R.8/2011), in which the Council of Ministers has set out its reasons for not pursuing a Committee of Inquiry, it talks of the Prosecution Process and states –

“The Council is in no doubt that fair and impartial justice has been delivered.”

Whilst this may be the case for the Council of Ministers, and possibly many or all States members, it is not true of the majority of those who directly or indirectly were let down by the States in the past. Indeed, their opinion, for the most part, is that there most certainly is doubt that fair and impartial justice has been delivered. Whether or not this position is actually correct is another matter, but it stands to reason that those who were at the receiving end of States’ inability to ensure that they were protected when they most needed protecting are unlikely to trust that same State when it comes to matters of deciding which prosecutions to pursue.

R.8/2011 then goes on to say –
“In July 2009, the then Attorney General also made a statement to the States Assembly in relation to cases where he had directed that there should be no further action.”.

This is true, and indeed the Attorney General did also say that giving such detail about the decision making process was unusual, but he did so given the great public interest and scrutiny of the Historic Abuse Inquiry cases.

Whilst this statement will have been reassuring to States members and many others, it is ultimately unverifiable in nature and from the perspective of those who remain distrustful of the ‘system’ will ultimately be seen as ‘trust us – we know best.’ Indeed, in its recent newsletter the Jersey Care Leavers Association restated its position that it felt they had ‘been denied justice time and time again and been ignored by the States of Jersey,’ and that cases had been ‘dropped at the 11th hour when there was ample evidence to prosecute.’

Deputy Hill himself states in the report to his amendment –

“The Assembly may wish to consider whether Ministers have done enough to restore and strengthen the confidence of ordinary Islanders in our system of justice, and whether the assurances so far given will be seen by the public at large as convincing and credible.”.

He goes on to say –

“If significant numbers of people, whether justified or otherwise, do not have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, then that lack of confidence is in itself a significant problem.”

There have also been allegations as far back as the notorious radio exchange between former Senators F.H. Walker and S. Syvret when the suggestion was mooted that Jersey might be tempted to prioritise its reputation and business interests above those of the victims themselves. Whilst even the mere suggestion of this is offensive to most of us, it is still something which needs to be looked at if any Committee of Inquiry is to be meaningful and comprehensive.

Finally, the Deputy of St. Martin is quite correct in his report to draw attention to the fact that the independence of the Law Officers in taking prosecution decisions is paramount, and this amendment does not seek to question that, but affirm it. This amendment seeks to include within the terms of reference of any eventual Committee of Inquiry to establish that at all times during the process of decision-making, political interference of any kind was not attempted.

To conclude, the decision whether or not to have a Committee of Inquiry is ultimately for States members. However, if we are to have one – which I hope we do – it is necessary that it be comprehensive and meaningful and so must include an examination of the prosecution processes, amongst other things.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional financial or manpower implications arising from this amendment.(End)


“If significant numbers of people, whether justified or otherwise, do not have confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, then that lack of confidence is in itself a significant problem.”


Is there a problem with our "Justice" system? Is it politicised? Were all those who could have been taken to court actually taken to court? Has the rule of law broken down in Jersey? Now that Deputy Tadier's amendment has been agreed by the States, will the Council of Ministers try and water it down? Tune in on Thursday to the live debate.



32 comments:

  1. Ahhh! - the Committee of Inquiry over which there seems to be a deafening silence at the moment from our Chief Minister.

    This Inquiry has to be robust, not weak, and furthermore it is imperative that Monty's amendment remains as part of the TOR and unaltered in any way.

    Indeed, many valid and pertinent suggestions were made to Mr Marsden, and when we finally get to know what his recommendations were, it will be interesting to see how many have been included.

    I will be away on Thursday, but I hope anybody who has questions about this makes contact with Voice TV and speaks to Monty. I also hope that our new intake of States Members support the strongest CoI, and not be taken in with the 'housekeeping issues' that Mr Gorst told me personally were a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good to see the blog tv progressing to live guests and on such an important subject as the law offices involvement of the child abuse cases. Hats off to Montfort for his amendment and for giving this new and inivitive concept of live broadcasting a chance. Have you got any other guests lined up?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jill.

    Ian Gorst's political career will be judged, by some, (most?) on his handling of the Child Abuse and the COI. There are a lot of eyes on him as no doubt he will be aware, and he'll most likely not want to be tarred with the Ian Le Marquand brush.......time will tell.

    Anon.

    Yes credit to Monty for his amendment and giving us a chance with this new concept of live broadcasts. We have a number of guests lined up including current and former politicians and most importantly possibly a number of Abuse Survivors.......watch this space.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “7. Was a consistent and impartial approach taken when deciding on which cases to prosecute; and was the process free from political influence or interference at any level?”.

    I would say they were not free from political interference and namely Stuart Syvret's blog running his own court sessions in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is an interesting point, although un-evidenced. Could you point us to some “evidence” of where Stuart Syvret has conducted his own court case in advance of ANY (of the very few) cases that went to court?

    We have invited Mr. Syvret on as a live guest and if you would like to go “head to head” with him, on the show, then we are sure this could be accommodated?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree VFC, Mr Gorst will be judged by many on how this COI is handled. I am starting out with reservations, and hope I am proven wrong.

    Firstly because he voted against holding the Inquiry, and furthermore because in the last week he has stated that the title of Chief Minister is just that and does not bear a lot of clout!

    So, we now have Philip Bailhache to contend with who is totally conflicted as well and should not be allowed anywhere near this.

    Quite a few hurdles to jump methinks!

    ReplyDelete
  7. All avenues lead to the law offices department in particular the AG's that's where it' all at.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi VFC,

    Jersey does not have a Justice system, we have a legal system, a very poor substitute.

    This legal system is designed to profit members of the legal profession and SoJ inc. It has nothing to do with Justice.

    I will be demonstrating this fact on Friday 27th April @ 10AM in the 'magistrates court'

    It should be entertaining!

    The more witnesses the better

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not sure where is the best place to make this comment but I'm putting it in here as it is related to the blogtv experience.

    I tuned in to Rico's broadcast yesterday and found it very encouraging. There is huge scope here for getting the message out and, I was going to say holding people to account, but they are probably the very people who will not go on live, unless, of course, they can be eventually shamed into it. To that end it is important that VFC blogtv establish itself as a quality channel.

    A few things struck me during Rico's broadcast:

    (i) VFC has been doing a first class job recording events like Scrutiny and in depth interviews. This has to continue.

    (ii) This means that blogtv will have to exploit the live aspect to the maximum. This will not be easy and there will have to be a lot of planning going into each of the broadcasts.

    (iii) It will be essential to get people who can engage with the viewers. It is very easy for even a half hour slot to go off the rails and for people to tune out. Full marks to Rico for keeping between 20 and 30 people tuned in for the half hour.

    (iv) Rico mentioned the possibility of a phone-in. I listen to a lot of these on Irish radio and I can see that they are, and need to be tightly controlled. I don't mean in the subjects dealt with but in the procedures adopted to make sure they run smoothly. They usually have at least one researcher who speaks to the people phoning in before they are put on air. The researcher draws up a brief note on what the phoner wants to discuss and where they are coming from; tries to assesse whether or not they are nutters and whether they will observe the rules about naming people on air so that the station is protected from legal consequences.In view of the planning and resources needed you would be as well leaving this development over for a while.

    (v) Clearly the broadcaster/interviewer cannot concentrate on their job and also keep a proper eye on written comments/questions coming in in the live stream. Rico was clearly at the pin of his collar trying to make sense of the stream while at the same time continuing to engage the audience. The stream itself contained a huge variety of material from direct questions to straight comments and also a series of subconversations going on independently. There therefore needs to be someone spefically allocated to pulling out relevant questions and passing them over to the broadcaster/interviewer.

    This is a really great development. May you have every success with it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Polo.

    Thanks for your constructive feedback and suggestions. Much of what you have said has been discussed and agreed. We hope each broadcast will be getting more professional and the in-depth video interviews will be maintained on this Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Póló,

    Thanks for your constructive feed back. We have talked about the issues you raised. Even with giving the Blog TV 100% of effort that actual blog won't be neglected that is for sure. I still have a little more to do on Operation Blast. Im awaiting a reply from the Jersey Law Office regarding my next posting.

    The Jersey Bloggers have come a long way. The information and research we have put out is up there with anything else online the only difference being we don't have a Mainstream Media who would dare touch it.

    Thanks again for the feedback. All will be taken onboard

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just to add to the thoughtful comment by Polo, I would recommend careful avoidance of the name calling but fact avoiding trolls who blight blogs and forums everywhere. If they are blurting out meaningless criticism, but making no reference to any facts in evidence, they serve no more informational purpose on the air than on this blog.

    Please do not let them bait you with their standard accusation that you are censoring views you don't agree with. Callers with facts and reasoned arguments should be made explicitly welcome, regardless of their differing opinions. Unfortunately for your vociferous critics, the facts seem to add up to support for your view only, so you may not hear of any evidenced disagreement to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The enquiry is our last shot of justice our last chance of really seeking the truth, it's about the Social Services as a whole and must cover care at home and in homes, or we have not looked properly at this. What about the child that was abused while at home? was tortured at home? then went into a home and was let down there as well when they were sent back home for more pain. Social Services as a whole needs addressing or we will never get to the real issues. This is our one and only chance of getting this right. For justice and for the future. Social services covers a wider spectrum it's not fair to only look at a piece of it, there is a wider picture and problem here and I hope at last this can be addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The whole apparatus of Child "Care" was looked into by a Serious Case Review (SCR) instigated by Law Firm Hanson & Renouf during the "Family X" case. The Report was nothing short of damming on just about every agency. A link to the Report can be found on THIS POSTING

    You are correct the whole lot STILL needs looking at, as nothing seems to have changed. It has been reported that children are no safer now than they were in the 1950's.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I will be interviewing Deputy Tadier live on Blog TV tomorrow, Thursday 26th at 7pm.

    The link is here.

    http://www.blogtv.com/People/voiceforchildren

    I will be interviewing the Deputy on issues concerning the Committee of Enquiry

    rs

    ReplyDelete
  16. Questions for Monty.

    What is your relationship with our current Chief Minister and is he open like he said he would be?

    Do you think the current multi-millionaire make up Government is still making/freezing policy in order to keep house prices high amongst other things?

    How do you see Jersey in 5 years time with the current news of double dip recession in the UK and the biggest European Bank, HSBC, shedding 90 jobs in Jersey as announcement today?

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why was Ben Shenton on BBC education debate surely a States member would add more credibility to the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. hi VFC, thanks for your support in court today

    A quick run down for your readers.

    Bridget shaw was initially reluctant to let me ask her a few questions but gave way some on my insistence.

    me; am I entitled to a fair trial?
    BS; ( apt initials) yes.
    me; am I presumed innocent of these alleged crimes?
    BS; yes.
    me; am I presumed innocent of all the elements of these alleged crimes?
    BS didn't want to answer this and waffled about me asking the prosecution (cop out)
    but did say the burden of proof was with the prosecution and to beyond a reasonable doubt

    the prosecution had to prove who was using the vehicle at the time of the alleged crime.

    62
    (4) Any person who uses a vehicle or causes or permits a vehicle to be used in contravention of any Order made under this Article shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100.

    here are just two of the questions I asked the prosecutions only witness (a parking control officer)

    me;so are you offering any evidence here today as to who was driving or using the vehicle @ 10:31 on 21 Dec 2011?
    PCO; no
    me; are you claiming that I was within the parish of st. helier at the time of the alleged crime?
    PCO; no

    so no evidence no facts
    guess what BS verdict was

    haha

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cyril.

    As a layman it appeared to me that you won the argument hands down. The prosecution, as you have said, could not/did not prove that you were in town, let alone using the car. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove their case…..they didn’t…..and they won! “Jersey” Justice not to be confused with “justice”……………IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cyril How was the verdict spun? guilty of what?

    Are you appealing?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cyril would something like this help.

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=buy%20a%20sir%20title&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elite-titles.com%2F&ei=8taaT5bKL8Hk4QTRic2oDw&usg=AFQjCNHbH9cU02D_Es_F09wCo8pUCeoabQ

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Anonymous said...
    Cyril would something like this help..."

    haha not for me,as I always tell
    our pubic serpents, I am not a MR (a legal fiction title)

    anon@18:25
    after one of her long breaks BS
    announced that the JEP had had a phone call warning that there would a disruption in the court uuumh, that would have been the ferocious gang of two 70+yo ring leaders,bloke with hernia,quadruple by pass guy, and a geezer with one hand.
    WHAT ARE THEY ON
    verdict a forgone conclusion, they will only been annoyed that I gave then nothing to pin a contempt charge on.

    failing to display a paycard

    appealing? maybe, will have to plan that one well hehe

    but I did not take the viscounts card, a real commercial instrument, and only thing they can lawfully enforce

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  23. Where is the interview with Monty?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Having a few technical problems with it will try and retrieve, as we don’t know where it is!

    ReplyDelete
  25. hi there think they blocked me or something , give them a call there very helpfull
    beartils

    ReplyDelete
  26. It has turned out that the live broadcast with Deputy Tadier was NOT recorded so apologies to our readers/viewers but this was out of our control and was the consequence of a technical problem with Blog TV.

    In the future we will be separately recording the live broadcasts with an external video and will publish them on the Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rico will be live and interactive tomorrow night (Sunday 29th April at 7pm BST). He will be discussing a number of issues concerning Jersey and interacting with the online audience. The broadcast will be, up to, an hour in duration and can be found HERE

    ReplyDelete

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