Royal Court Challenge. Re-election St Helier Number 1?

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF

NICK LE CORNU AND GINO RISOLI

FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION      -       31ST OCTOBER 2014

Challenge in Royal Court to St Helier District No.1 Election

Deputy Nick Le Cornu and Gino Risoli, candidates in the election for Deputy in St Helier No.1 held on 15^th October 2014, are presenting an application to the Royal Court at 10am Friday 31st October to have the election in that District declared void and a new election called, based on high levels of electoral irregularities and manipulations.

A press conference will be held outside the States Building, Royal Square at 11am by both applicants.

Nick Le Cornu said “Jersey’s first General Election has been marred by irregularities in elections across the island and most recently in the Senatorial recount which “found” new votes. New matters are emerging on a daily basis from elections across the island.”

“To the very end I am fulfilling my mandate as Deputy to challenge the way things have been done in the past. That is what I stood for when I was elected in the March by-election. I am morally obliged to take that commitment seriously.”

“I asked the Chief Minister twice during question time and the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee if election observers would be invited to Jersey’s first General Election and received anodyne answers. The present mess is the consequence.”

“PPC and the Parishes have been found wanting.  Complacency and indifference abound. The absence of rigor and professionalism is matched by a refusal to implement best practice and standards applicable elsewhere. There even appears to be ignorance of the detailed handbooks produced by the Electoral Commission in the UK for the forthcoming May 2015 General Election.”

“During the count in St Helier 3/4 some 261 pre poll votes were not added in before the result of the election was announced. This discovery necessitated a restatement of the numbers.”

“I have evidence of Portuguese people registered to vote being turned away from pre-polling on spurious grounds that their names could not be found. No effort was made to check persons by their address in the street roll of electors”.

“Large numbers of Poles discovered that they were not registered to vote following an extensive voter registration campaign by the supporters of a Polish Senatorial candidate. Forms known to have been delivered to the Town Hall simply had not been processed, denying the right to vote on election day.”

“In the Deputies ballot box of District No.1 there appeared a blank ballot for Deputy in District No.2 St Helier. I suspect this irregularity occurred from a error at pre-polling resulting in the ballot being directed to the wrong polling station. This should be investigated”

“We have to look beyond one little error in one District. There were a preponderance of irregularities and the devil is in the detail. These raise doubts about the integrity of the election as a whole. These things cannot be dismissed as “an accident” when looked at together.”

“Of particular concern to us is that Scott Wickenden was allowed to stand as a candidate and end up being elected a Deputy in District No.1, when his nomination form was defective by virtue of not having 9 seconders, all capable of voting for him in that election. It is inconceivable that the checking process by the Parish of St Helier failed to spot this most fundamental of errors, that one of his seconders was registered in District No.2. Checking is supposed to occur before the nomination meeting, on the night and double checked subsequently. This is gross negligence by Scott Wickenden and on the part of the Constable and Parish of St Helier.”

“The onus is entirely on the candidate to present a valid nomination form at the Nomination Meeting. The absence of 9 seconders on the nomination form invalided the candidate and his election. The candidate only has himself to blame if he cannot understand the fundamental requirements of the election law. These are spelled out in the instructions attached to every nomination paper obtained from a Parish hall.”

“Election disputes are inherent to elections. Challenging an election, its conduct or its results, should however not be perceived as a reflection of weakness, but proof of the strength, vitality and openness of the political system. The right to vote would be merely abstract if the right to sue to enforce it was not guaranteed in law.”

“This is a political issue that must be challenged for the sake of the integrity of the electoral process in Jersey.”

“On the 9^th November will be the 25^th anniversary of the collapse of states who had other electoral standards than ours. Twenty five years after the non-elected Socialist governments disappeared we cannot get our elections honest.”

“Were this Russia or Ukraine these anomalies would be presented as a “crisis of democracy.”

Jersey Dean Who Exonerated him?

Senator Philip Bailhache has published a Press Release claiming that the Dame Heather Steel Report has exonerated the Dean of Jersey and the Jersey Clergy. Yet in the same Press Release he criticises Bishop Tim Dakin for not publishing the (unfinished) Steel Report.

This begs the question how does Philip Bailhache know the Steel Report exonerates (or otherwise) ANYBODY when it is unfinished and he's complaining it is unpublished? Nobody is supposed to have seen this Report yet Philip Bailhache claims to know what's in it?

Naturally parts of the local State Media have given Senator Bailhache the platform he was looking for in order to peddle his Press Release totally unchallenged and not least by ITV Channel Television where the Senator was interviewed on last night's 6pm "news" programme and was not asked the most obvious question(s) (surprise surprise) WHERE DOES THE STEEL REPORT SAY ANYBODY HAS BEEN "EXONERATED"/HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT?

I e-mailed ITV Channel Television and asked them;

"On tonight's edition of your 6pm news programme Senator Philip Bailhache was interviewed by Mark McQuillan concerning the Dame Heather Steel Report. On a number of occasions Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, stated that the Report had exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy.

Could I ask what Report Mr. McQuillan, and Senator Bailhache, were referring to? It clearly can't be the un-finished Dame Heather Report because that hasn't been published.

Is there another Report which has exonerated the Jersey Dean/Clergy? If so could you tell me where I could find a copy of it please? I'm not aware of any Report that has exonerated the Jersey Dean or Clergy."(END)

Below is Senator Bailhache's Press Release that makes no mention of the alleged Abuse Victim "HG", who he has, in a previous letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, labelled this Abuse Victim as the Abuser, the letter can be read HERE.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache

PRESS RELEASE

24 November 2013

"I am delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report but appalled by the Bishop of Winchester’s expressed intention to suppress its publication on what appear to be very specious grounds. The Bishop agreed with the Bailiff and the Dean that he would pass copies of the report to them, and he should honour that promise.

He asserts that he has given an undertaking not to release the report after representations from an interested person. As it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey, the only people who might be concerned about criticism in the report are those in or near the entourage of the Bishop. The unidentified interested party is either the person who made the original report which wrongly impugned the Dean, or a member of the Bishop’s staff. As Ms Korris’s report was published without its even being shown to the Dean, there can be no justification for acceding to any representation from her. As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding, and a full explanation of why the Dean has been exonerated. The Dean and the clergy are entitled to the publication of the complete Steel report so that their reputations can be fully restored in the eyes of the public.

The Bishop asserts that “questions remain about safeguarding best practice …”. Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were. The Bishop should act in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Terms of Reference that he issued, and deliver a copy of the final report to the Bailiff and Dean as soon as he has received it."(END)

How does Senator Bailhache know  "it is clear that the report makes no criticism of the Dean or clergy in Jersey?" How can he be "delighted that the Dean and his clergy have been exonerated by the Steel report?" when in the same Press Release he complains "Dame Heather Steel was charged to investigate whether there was any failure to “act in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure”.  We are all entitled to know her conclusions on that issue were." The Senator seems to know that everybody in Jersey has been exonerated, how-come he doesn't know the conclusion the safeguarding issue?

This Press Release, in my opinion, was a (not so) carefully orchestrated piece of spin to artificially restore the reputation of the Dean/Clergy and Jersey. Published with the full knowledge that the State Media will not question/challenge him or it......As seen on ITV Cannel Television last night.

If the Dean has been "exonerated" then why did he APOLOGISE and why wasn't that question asked of Philip Bailhache on State Media last night?

Yet possibly one of the most "laughable?" sentence's in the Press Release has got to be this: "As to the Bishop’s staff, it would be outrageous for the Bishop to protect them at the expense of Jersey’s reputation for safeguarding" JERSEY'S REPUTATION FOR SAFEGUARDING? IS HE FOR REAL? Yet he wasn't questioned on this either.

If only we had a mainstream media who realised that it's a journalist's job to challenge/scrutinise power rather than be a part of it. If only we had a mainstream media who spoke up for those who had no power/voice then ITV Channel Television might have had "HG" sat on their couch last night and not Philip Bailhache. If only we had a mainstream media who scared authority rather than could be relied upon to scare the powerless and voiceless....................If only.

Response from State Greffier Michael De La Haye.

Further to our previous posting where we published the PRESS RELEASE concerning the nomination of the Chairman for the Committee Of Inquiry into the decades of Child Abuse Frances Oldham QC. We publish a response from States Greffe Michael De La Haye.

In our previous posting we told readers that we were in contact (and still are) with Mr. De La Haye, all through the weekend. Before we published our previous posting, the relevant part was sent to Mr. De La Haye in order to give him a right of reply before publication.

Yesterday we received an e-mail from Mr. De La Haye, in response to the Blog Posting, and e-mail exchanges, which was considered for publication in the comments section of that posting. However, in the interest of fairness and balance, it has been decided that it should be a stand alone Blog Posting.

State Greffier Michael De La Haye. 

"I am writing in connection with our exchanges of emails over the weekend and today and in particular in relation to your request to be interviewed for your blog. I should mention at the outset that I have not given any media interviews about the nomination of Frances Oldham QC and the reports in today's media have all been simply based on the media release that I forwarded to you under embargo as requested at the weekend.

As I mentioned at the weekend I do not believe it would appropriate for me to be interviewed by you. As Greffier of the States I have to be scrupulous in everything that I do to ensure that I am never seen to do anything in my work that could be perceived as political or politically controversial. I hope all members of the States would confirm that I endeavor in everything I do to comply with this requirement so that no-one can ever claim that I am not at all times a totally impartial and independent officer of the States.

Although there are a range of political views about blog sites in Jersey I know you would not disagree if I say that it is clear that there are some States members who consider blogs are important and some of these are willing to engage actively with you and other bloggers to give interviews etc whereas there are other States members who do not wish to engage at all with you. It is not for me to comment on these varying views as to do so would be to be entering the political debate that will no doubt continue on this issue for the foreseeable future as the media landscape and the influence of the internet continues to evolve.

The immediate problem for me is that if I agreed to be interviewed on this issue my decision would be seen by some as a political statement on my part by those States members who feel it is inappropriate. These members could then be critical of my decision to be interviewed. I simply cannot, in my position, unilaterally decide that engaging with a blog site is a correct thing for the Greffier of the States to do. I'd stress most strongly that in taking this decision I'm not, as a result, 'siding' with those who think that engaging is incorrect but until there is general political agreement on what is appropriate I simply cannot be seen to be expressing a view either way.

I hope all who know me would agree that it is not in my nature to be awkward or obstructive and I am more than happy to explain briefly for you some of the steps that we followed in identifying Mrs Oldham so that you can be satisfied that she is a suitable person to chair the inquiry.

After the sad news about Sally Bradley QC's ill health the selection panel of Belinda Smith,Ed Marsden and myself met urgently to discuss how we could identify a new chairman. I should stress most strongly that we have never, at any time, sought any advice or guidance from anyone in Jersey about the appointment of a chairman and I can also confirm that luckily no one in Jersey has ever actually tried to tell me how I should go about the task of finding a Chairman. I have not, in fact, discussed the appointment process with anyone in Jersey until we had concluded it and even my own staff might say that I have been unusually secretive about what I have been doing! To avoid any 'Jersey' connection all the practical arrangements to contact people and arrange meetings etc were made through Ed Marsden's office.

We relied on a number of sources such as legal directories and enquiries with organisations in the UK to identify a number of potentially suitable QCs to chair the inquiry and Ed Marsden and I then met them for an initial discussion to explain what would be involved and to hear from them about their experience. We made extensive inquiries before and during the informal meetings that those we were seeing had absolutely no contacts at all with anyone in Jersey who was in any way involved with the issues to be covered in the inquiry and we made sure that they did not know anyone in Jersey who was in any way connected with the inquiry. A number of people were excluded because of connections and I think it is fair to say that we erred significantly on the side of caution when assessing any possible conflict.

When we saw potential chairmen we were keen to assess their proposed approach to the inquiry and ensure that they were aware of the importance of engaging in a sympathetic way with all who wanted to give evidence. We also wanted to hear what practical experience they had of dealing with victims of abuse and how they would ensure that appropriate arrangements were in place to handle all witnesses sensitively. We made sure that they appreciated how important the inquiry was for Jersey and wanted to know what experience they had of hearing potentially conflicting evidence and reaching an accurate conclusion. We were particularly keen to talk to QCs who had experience sitting as judges in the Family Division or the Crown Court as presiding in these courts and dealing with witnesses and lawyers for both sides would give very relevant experience for presiding over a public inquiry.

We shortlisted down to 3 QCs and the full selection panel then conducted a formal interview with these 3. We were unanimous at the end that Mrs Oldham had all the right experience to chair the inquiry. She has many years experience dealing with abuse cases and she explained to us that a huge proportion of the cases she deals with involve some form of physical or sexual abuse. She is determined to ensure that the inquiry allows people to tell their stories so that the inquiry finally brings closure and establishes exactly what happened over the period covered by the inquiry terms of reference. She has absolutely no connections at all with Jersey and has never met or come into contact with anyone connected in any way with the issues to be covered by the inquiry. She had never been to the island before coming for the interview we held. She convinced us that she will be fearless in getting to the truth to the best of her ability. She has sat as a judge for several years and in this capacity has to hear evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Importantly she has an extremely engaging and pleasant personal manner and we were convinced that she will be seen as a very suitable person to chair the inquiry by all who come into contact with her in the coming months.

Having been charged by the States to lead the selection process for a chairman I have done everything I can to ensure that the most suitable person possible (who was available to commit to work for some 12 months on this) was found. I recognize fully how important the inquiry is for the Island and was determined to do all I could to the best of my ability throughout the selection process to find the best person I could.

I hope this helps. For the avoidance of doubt I would mention that although I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to be interviewed I have no objection if you wish to publish this email on your blog site.

Michael de la Haye
Greffier of the States"(END)

It should be noted that in all our dealings with Mr. De La Haye we have found him to be extremely helpful, professional and impartial,willing to engage and answer any questions. If only some (most) of our politicians could take a leaf out of his book then maybe we could all work together in doing what is right for the Abuse Victims/Survivors and the Island as a whole......

Press Release of Deputies Trevor and Shona Pitman.

PRESS RELEASE: DEPUTIES SHONA & TREVOR PITMAN

SUBJECT:  APPLICATION TO APPEAL OUT OF TIME DUE TO JURAT’S CONFLICT   OF INTEREST

DATE:       15^TH JULY 2013 (Embargoed until 11am)

CHALLENGE TO A JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT-FIT-FOR-PURPOSE

Deputies Shona & Trevor Pitman have today announced that they have lodged an application to Appeal out of Time as Litigants in Person against the decision by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court (a judge and just two local jurats) to dismiss their defamation case against the Jersey Evening Post and 1^st Jersey Limited: the estate agent, Broadlands; this resulting from the infamous ‘4 x the salary, darling!’ advert published in the newspaper.

The Deputies told the media: ‘We have taken this decision in the light of evidence coming to light that the senior Jurat on the case, John Le Breton, had a very serious Conflict of Interest; rendering the Inferior Number incompliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights This being that he has an evidenced, longstanding relationship, both social and working, over many years with a director of the Jersey Evening Post’s owners – yet chose not to reveal this nor recuse himself as required.

The grave seriousness of this failing is further highlighted, stated Deputy Shona Pitman, by the fact that, in contrast, both the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff did recuse themselves from sitting on the case simply because of the public perception of potential bias due to their ‘political relationship’ with the two Deputies as States Members. ‘Under the Conflict of Interest rules both Crown Officers were right to recuse themselves; even though neither one of us has ever socialised with either judge in private; let alone visited either Crown Officer’s home to do so. Jurat Le Breton, however, did both with a director of a defendant company in the case. It is simply unacceptable.’

Yet the above conflict of interest is not the only concern regarding Jurat Le Breton that the Deputies have had brought to their attention by members of the public since the conclusion of their court case. In managing to obtain a copy of the government suppressed 1999 Stephen Sharp Report into horrific child abuse at Victoria College; the Deputies say that it became apparent that Le Breton actually had an evidenced history of refusing to consider evidence in making judgements. This relates to the case against a former friend and teaching colleague, the predatory paedophile Andrew Jervis-Dykes who plied young boys with alcohol on boat trips before sexually abusing them – even videoing abuse..

Deputy Trevor Pitman said: ‘That a man is allowed to be put forward to become a Jurat by a former President of the Education Committee – a States Member and Constable who was actually on the Victoria College Board of Governors at the time of Jervis-Dykes’ appalling abuse – and subsequently allowed to sit by two successive Bailiffs for a period of 14 years is quite horrifying. Let us not forget here, weighing up evidence is the cornerstone of a jurat’s role. Yet John Le Breton not only refused to look at evidence against this paedophile he then made it his business to actually write to authorities in Jervis-Dykes’ defence. This support included arguing that the paedophile had in fact ‘served the College in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way’; and even claiming that if the police did not prosecute there may be ‘no case (for Jervis-Dykes) to answer’!

The Pitmans state that having no money left to further engage a lawyer following a three year long legal battle they have, with the support of a dozen concerned political figures and justice campaigners, instead brought the revelations to every relevant justice authority in an attempt to get what they state is a clear and serious miscarriage of justice rectified.

‘We have written outlining what has come to light since the court case concluded to the Bailiff, the Island’s  Chief Minister, the UK Justice Minister (Lord McNally), and even last month, the Lieutenant-Governor who is the Queen’s representative on the Island. With the exception of Lord McNally – who we were blocked from meeting by the Chief Minister’s Office – we have even met with all of these individuals. All have in effect made excuses as to why they can do nothing no matter what the evidence. Indeed, in the case of UK Justice Minister, Lord McNally he incredibly simply offered to refer us back to the Bailiff – the very individual who allowed this to happen by his failure to ensure that Jurat Le Breton complied with the rules on Conflict of Interest and recused himself.’

‘It is because of all of this,’ concluded Deputy Trevor Pitman, ‘that we are now left with no option but to attempt to challenge this as Litigants in Person. Neither of us are legally trained and the strain of having to now do this – coming as it does after years of fighting for justice and on top of our political work – will be huge. Yet we have no option. To not do so means financial ruin – which is possibly what some involved would like. It is not lost on either of us that as public figures we actually have some degree of a platform to try and challenge this huge injustice – something most ordinary people do not.

Justice simply should not be down to whether one has deep pockets or be dependent upon who an individual is; whether they have ‘rocked the political boat’ or not. Of course, since making public what has gone on behind the scenes in our case we now know that we are far from being alone in suffering such abuse of the justice system.

It is quite clear that a Mistrial should be called in our case as it has not been compliant with Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am learning of more people suffering serious legal abuses on an almost weekly basis. In fighting for justice ourselves we hope we are also giving hope to all others utterly betrayed by a justice system that is meant to protect everyone but which does not. We will endeavour to help anyone else we can. Indeed, we will fight all the way to Strasbourg if necessary until Jersey gets its judicial system in order’. (END)

In the exclusive, and in-depth interview below, we discuss the contents of this latest Press Release, the untenable and conflicted dual role of the unelected, all powerful Bailiff position. Tax-payer funded "secret" court case and more.

The Deputies previous Press Release calling on the UK government to intervene to restore good governance and the rule of law to Jersey can be viewed HERE.