Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Advocate Philip Sinel Interview (Part 1)



Further to Advocate Philip Sinel's recent PRESS RELEASE we have a two part in-depth interview (below), with Mr. Sinel, where he discusses the Press Release in more detail.

Advocate Sinel discusses the controversy surrounding his decision to give evidence in an American court, regarding the Bank of Cantrade scandal and subsequent complaint made by (now) Commissioner Julian Clyde Smith for doing so.

The coincidences of those who speak out against The Jersey Establishment/Jersey Way seem to become "accident prone" or find themselves "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Asked why Advocate Sinel believes those in his profession who are, shall we say, "unhappy" with the Jersey Judicial system are not speaking out publicly he replies "they do not wish to join me in the dock." "They know what's going to happen if they start poking their heads above the parapet."

Has Advocate Sinel, like former Chief Police Officer Graham Power QPM, former DCO Lenny Harper, former Health Minster, Stuart Syvret, the Pitman's and a long list of others who have been critical of "The Jersey Way" become, like them, "accident prone" where he finds himself the subject of numerous professional complaints/prosecutions? Or is it time for Whitehall/London to fulfil its constitutional obligation and restore good governance and the Rule of Law in Jersey?




46 comments:

  1. Fantastic interview! erudite, sincere, honest.... and did I detect a subtle suggestion that Philip Bailache was ordered to resign?? it always did seem very suspicious, the manner in which he left office only to return as a Senator... this would explain an awful lot.

    And whilst I can understand the reticence of other legal professionals to "stick their heads above the parapet" are they really such a gutless cadre? take they money and keep quiet! These are intelligent people who could easily organize and forum, albeit anonymous -to highlight what is going on in this corrupt little utopia. Harry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The legal profession has a lot to answer for. The integrity of Jersey's entire legal system seems to depend on the integrity of a few persons in the Bailiff's Chambers, and in the Law Officers' Department. Hevertheless, the Law Society of Jersey is duty bound to "make representations, as appropriate, on any matter affecting (i) the administration of the law, the judicial system or the legal profession, (ii) civil rights or liberties or matters of public interest, or (iii) ...".

      If there is genuine concern within the legal circles to which Advocate Sinel refers, which I do not doubt, then it is entirely appropriate for the Law Society of Jersey to apply to the Royal Court for registration of their respective concerns anonymously or otherwise. This applies even to a small subset of the legal profession: the Law Society of Jersey has no obligation to uphold confidence in the existing legal system except to the extent it is required to under its disciplinary code." As the disciplinary code regulates the conduct of individual advocates acting in their capacity as advocates, and as committee members are obliged to fulfil the wider objects of the Society as provided by law, the Society would be operating quite within its power to conduct a secret ballot of its members' to ascertain whether and to what extent it ought to make representations to the Royal Court pursuant to the proper administration of the law, the judicial system ... or matters of public interest.

      Delete
    2. "The Law Society" - "secret ballot" - to vote on question of - "making representations to the Royal Court" - to the effect that that Royal "Court" is dysfunctional and corrupt - after - note, after - the Crown has already signalled its power and position in elevating William Bailhache to "Bailiff" - rather than suspending him - even though there's dramatic - and unanswered - damming - published - testimony against him - from a witness of no-less calibre than a nationally respected Police Chief?

      Ho ho ho.

      Stuart

      Delete
    3. I can understand the problem you are referring to. However, I would not assume that the Crown is sufficiently aware of the situation here in Jersey to be planning the appointment of William Bailhache in the knowledge of his alleged central involvement in the corruption of the prosecutorial and judicial functions here in Jersey. I realise you have made various applications for judicial relief against the Crown in the UK and I am not presently aware of the outcome of those applications, but communication is often poor within large disjoint organisations.

      I am aware of the testimony provided by the Police Chief and do not doubt the possibility that the then, and the current, Attorney Generals - William Bailhache and Tim Le Cocq respectively - would be and are prepared to intervene to prevent the investigation or prosecution of establishment figures by the Police.

      Nevertheless, I would not discount the utility of organisations such as the Law Society of Jersey to advance a program of constitutional reform in Jersey in accordance with the statutory and public function conferred upon them. Indeed, with the decision of Advocate Sinel to report his concerns publicly and with the support of States' Members I would say that those interested in pursuing constitutional reform would be in a good position to ask the Law Society of Jersey to intervene; and, having regard to the Carswell Report, to apply for judicial review of any decision of the Law Society not to intervene.

      In such circumstances, those legal practitioners that are passive and 'unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet' are liable to become inherently active by their inactivity: are they really going to resist an application for judicial review? Are they going to defend the Bailiff's resistance against the recommendations embodied in an independent report produced at the instance of the States of Jersey? Which legal practitioners are going to identify themselves as supporters of a corrupt regime? Even the lawyer that prosecuted you, Advocate Stephen Baker, is precluded from making such daft representations given his complaints of corruption (whether posturing or otherwise) in proceedings on behalf of Curtis Warren.

      Delete
  2. Had no idea Rottweiler Sinel could be so mild mannered.

    The establishment is like a gang of spoilt children snatching the dog's food bowl and then poking it with a sharp stick :-)

    Given the sustained heat that team "BailhOzouf" is under from the evidenced blogs another analogy would be Hitlers disastrous opening of the eastern front before the Allies were beaten.
    Delusions of invincibility be deeply flawed people.


    Advocate Sinel says that your blog's revelations are only scratching the surface.
    -Sadly he is almost certainly right.

    As concluded by the Carswell Review "Lack of separation of powers is the [root of all Jersey's failure & evil]" etc. etc.
    -Yup, follow the money.

    "The oligarchy are continually embarrassing themselves"
    -WRONG! have you not noticed that the oligarchy are beyond shame -utterly shameless!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent interview - not least because at long last a Jersey lawyer has spoken out but of course he has done so before and been largely ignored. So what could/should happen this time? Advocate Sinel will be appearing before the Abuse Inquiry and presenting to the Access to Justice in Jersey Review of legal services etc but then what? Obviously the rest of the legal profession will not join with him but on the contrary will be claiming that everything is wonderful (see my interview with Advocate Corbett in March 2013 on tomgruchy.blogspot.com) and the "accredited media" will hardly be promoting the Sinel view and our 51 "elected" States reps will find many more important things to be doing in the run up to the elections....so we are looking, once again, to ourselves - the general public - to give Adv Sinel's views the support they warrant. It is US who must promote reform and challenge - both within and outside of the Island - the entrenched "establishment" grip. Giving evidence to the two Inquiries referred to is essential. If you can write even the shortest memo it can help but we must bear in mind that ever since the separation from Normandy in 1204 the legal system in the Channel Islands has been confused and largely rotten. Many have tried to change it and some progress has ben achieved but we must not expect miracles. The Bailiff is still entrenched in the States in spite of two recent Inquiries at least that said he must serve only on the Judicial Bench so we must know that Jersey lawyers have a particularly perverse and powerful control on the status quo. Advocate Sinel's maverick statements must be supported and if he has any thoughts about standing for election this Autumn then he must be encouraged...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Voice,

    Thank you for part 1 of this excellent interview. Advocate Sinel seems to have had enough of this rotten judicial system and must be applauded for giving this exclusive interview to citizen media. Bring on part 2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be helpful, I think, to have a clearer statement from Advocate Sinel regarding the alleged conflict of interest between himself and Commissioner Clyde-Smith and, in particular, the apparent circumstances involving Commissioner Clyde-Smith's son at the Magistrates' Court. I really found myself quite stunned at the audacity of Commissioner Clyde-Smith in sitting as a judge in this latest case, although I regret I am not surprised based on his track record in the past.

      Delete
  5. Deputy Mezec was looking forward to this interview and I would appreciate his comments on Mr Sinel's observations and his reaction to the interview?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy to oblige.

      When I first saw that Philip Sinel had been charged with a serious criminal offense, the first thoughts that came to my head were "that's very convenient for some people", given his reputation for speaking out against the judicial system.

      His submission to the Carswell Review was pure dynamite and I always thought it was refreshing to see a Jersey lawyer actually honestly speaking out about the system.

      His assessment of lots of lawyers sharing his views but not speaking out is definitely true in my experience (including some who you wouldn't expect). And he and the interviewer are absolutely right to say that those people are the ones causing the problem. The lawyers who think everything is fine and dandy are never shy to publicly share that opinion. More lawyers need to be true to their oaths and actually stand up for their profession by being honest that we do not have an exemplary system in Jersey and it drastically needs reform.

      I'm looking forward to part 2 of this.

      Delete
  6. Let me tell you something about these parasite lawyers.

    At the end of the day they do exactly what Mr Sinel states here " The lawyers just make it up !

    He makes money when the prosecutions and harassment fail against him, the court makes money for tabling this crap, and the corrupt law officer makes money for representing the crown.

    The only loser is YOU , the Tax payer, they all know what they are doing and its all just one big game ! including Sinel and every lawyer based in Jersey.

    If you described the goings on in jersey to any qualified barrister based in the uk they simply wouldn't believe it .

    Every law firm and advocate are inherently corrupt, and the judicial system just facilitates the corruption on behalf of bent lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you described the goings on in jersey to any qualified barrister based in the uk they simply wouldn't believe it ."

      Mentioned in Part Two of the interview.

      Delete
    2. Indeed UK Lawyers reaction to the Jersey Courts antics are quoted in THIS POSTING.

      Delete
    3. Of course that's what you get when you have a private members only club (BAR association/law society) running a justice system.

      Delete
    4. Well done Advocate Sinel

      Jersey law is basicly a 'cartel', a 'closed shop' run by the "law union bosses" and crown officer mobsters.

      Few are willing to speak out about it because they know that their card will be marked.

      Human nature is such that few lawyers will damage the VERY lucrative arrangement which they benefit from. They would rather hold their platter high and out of the effluent now rising around their thighs.

      -The judicial function has long been stitched-up and was hijacked long ago.
      -The policing function was recaptured when top officers refused to "sit" and "beg" and "heel" and insisted on investigating inconvenient or embarrassing crimes. G.Power was illegally suspended and replaced by plastic policemen on leashes.
      -Internal control of oversight was consolidated by the supposedly "Independent" Jersey Police Authority:

      http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-ogier-group/

      "We deliver a flexible and understanding client-based approach to providing policing, prosecution and judiciary services......." LOL

      Delete
    5. I'm glad you liked that.

      I have cause to be producing an official document which deals with the subject - and acts and omissions of - Advocate / Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith. Of course - in due course - I'll see that it gets posted somewhere.

      Strange though it be to comprehend this, in some ways Clyde-Smith is now an even bigger nightmare for the Monarch & the Crown judicial function than the Bailhache Brothers.

      Overreaching is intrinsic to acts of hubris. and in any era the conduct of this man and his colleagues would have been folly.

      But now - in the 21st century - in a modern Western democracy - in Britain - and in the name and authority of the Crown?

      Not for the first time I'm forced to speculate as to whether the Crown needs to pay more attention to its plain duty towards the safe and competent administration of justice by applying some standard mental fitness tests to those it empowers as judges in Jersey.

      Stuart

      Delete
    6. The more I read about Commissioner Clyde-Smith and the more I hear reports from those who have appeared before him, the more concerned I become about the fact that he remains in place as a Commissioner of the Royal Court. Also, for about two years now he appears to have presided over proceedings in Jersey more often than he did previously. If I recall correctly, he also presided over the case involving the death of the young lady who died in the car crash along St Clement's coast road, a case that was widely said to have involved a son or relative of former Chief Minister Frank Walker.

      It does make me wonder what information the Commissioner is party to that may be securing his position relative to the Bailiff and the Deputy Bailiff? I seem to recall reading on a blog somewhere, possibly that of Mr Syvret, to the effect that Commissioner Clyde-Smith had been conflicted in a number of cases including that of Mr Power and Mr Syvret because he had personally been involved in the defence of a person alleged to have committed serious crimes either at Haute de la Garenne.

      Delete
  7. "Gradwell and Warcup were creatures of the establishment". Well said Mr Sinel I hope you explain this to the Committee Of Enquiry because everybody else knows this and so should the COE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt comments like that would be taken very seriously by the COI.
      Not very professional.

      Delete
    2. The COI might not take comments seriously but it is obligated to take the evidence seriously.

      Delete
  8. What can be done about the obviously rotten jersey judiciary? When will the UK say enough is enough? People in jersey are so divided that it helps maintain the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am reminded by the words of Winston Churchill "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" Churchill said these words to exemplify the very best of humanity, here in Jersey these very same words have a very different meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If the Advocate is not careful he will get even more of the treatment reserved for other champions of justice for all like Stuart Syvret, Trevor and Shona Pitman and our best ever police officers Lenny Harper and Graham Power. Hope he keeps swinging now like the above are still doing. A very good interview indeed. Very professional interviewing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. VFC.
    Do you know if Graham Power or Lenny Harper (or both), have been asked, or are going to, give their evidence to the COI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I am aware, they both will be submitting evidence to the COI, if they haven’t already.

      Delete
  12. VFC

    Do you think Warcup & Gradwell will be submitting evidence to the COI?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very much doubt it but they should be compelled to appear before the Inquiry in order to attempt explaining their disgraceful actions.

      Delete
  13. Why wait now after many years to come out and say the establishment is corrupt.And as for the many decent lawyers who know whats going on but decide to keep their head down and carry on they are just as bad as the corrupt ones.How many people have suffered over the years because of their silence.They are all as bad as each other.Isn't it about time they grew some balls and face the corruption rather than worry about their salary.If in my line of work I knew that my inaction would result in someone suffering either financially,physically or abusively,i couldn't live with myself.Maybe that's because I have morals and am not motivated by monetary greed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that Advocate Sinel has only just decided to come out and say the judicial function in Jersey is corrupt. Indeed, he was subject to disciplinary proceedings for so saying some years ago. The establishment response is generally to inflict economic and reputational harm on those that speak out. Moreover, the public of Jersey do not respect those that fight for their fundamental rights: just look at the prevailing attitudes against Stuart Syvret for example. Nevertheless, Advocate Sinel's timing is good.

      Delete
    2. To be fair to Advocate Sinel he has been making representations thought the proper channels and to the crown for a decade or more.

      Unfortunately in jersey the proper channels do not work and now even the good name of the crown is being dragged through the sewer because of Jersey's feral crown authorities.

      Delete
  14. I love the fact that you had to edit the video at 7:35, after Advocate Sinel's comments about Sir Philip Bailhache's now infamous Liberation Day speech. I would pay very, very good money to listen to what got left on Team Voice's cutting room floor!

    :-)

    Well done to Team Voice and Advocate Sinel. He's a great man. Maybe you could offer a similar service to other Jersey lawyers, albeit in a darkened room in silhouette, with their voice disguised? I'm only joking a little bit...

    ReplyDelete
  15. if I went around to my bosses house and saw him sexually abusing a ten year old boy and kept quiet about it because I didn't want to lose my job,i would be no different to the many 'decent' lawyers who know whats going on in this island and decide to keep quiet.Selfish,immoral and no sense of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Advocate Sinel is correct. I have spoken out and have been severely punished. Commissioner Clyde-Smith was in on the act.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I too spoke out and Clyde-Smith played his part in silencing me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. RB @ 17:08, Anonymous @ 18:25, can you elaborate on your comments? What was Clyde-Smith's role? Who were the jurats?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jurats Morgan & Blampied

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it a case that can be viewed on http://www.jerseylaw.je?

      Delete
    2. No its not but the case was and is a mess and shows the corruption.

      Delete
    3. I presume the judgment is marked something like 'for the file and parties only', then. Were you a litigant in person, or were you represented in the proceedings? If represented, would you be prepared to contact your legal representative to obtain a one-time reference number that may be published here?

      Delete
    4. There was no file. I can only say that it is funny that all the same names crop up so many times. You cannot make any of it up. How many times do you put your head over the parapet for it to get shot off.

      Delete
    5. Not entirely sure what you mean by 'there was no file'. If there was a judgment then the Judicial Greffier holds a copy on file and usually publishes it on the Jersey Law website. On occasions, the judgment is marked with something like 'for the file and parties only' when it is not intended to be published. Often judgments involving family disputes and children are not published for access to the general public but may be available to legal practitioners.

      Backing an allegation of corruption against Commissioner Clyde-Smith with a copy of the relevant judgments is not analogous to putting your head over the parapet. The Commissioner will have written the judgment for it to be used in future proceedings. Hopefully, this time, it will be criminal proceedings for misconduct in a public office, and corruption.

      Delete
    6. It would be great if that was the result. Thing is my problem was so simple it was made complicated. Even to the point that by a consent order. I consented to being subjected to the shameful and disrespectful behaviour. Some people treat their animals badly. To treat a human being with this sort of contempt is an abuse.

      Delete
  20. I see the same two saw Mr & Mrs Pitman en desatre. I need not say anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chuckle with the legal aid system. Its all the same lawyers. What is Advocate Gollop representing the alledged murderer? Surely, Crown Advocate's should remain as such and not defending as well?

    ReplyDelete

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