(Some) Key Issues Facing Jersey.

The Jersey Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has triggered a massive outpouring of evidence, interpretations and thoughts. There is a danger that the key issues get lost in the mass of evidence and comment. Team Voice has therefore sifted through as much of the evidence as we are able and picked from the contributions to the Blogs what our readers appear to see as the key themes to emerge. We publish them for your comment and, as always, for our worldwide readership who may see benefit in a short summary of what, from our perspective, this is all about.

Jersey needs reforms, which bring its governance to a standard, that most other western democracies would see as normal. Nothing is being asked for which is beyond what most societies would see as basic entitlements. We believe that everything said in this Blog Posting is well supported by evidence, which is readily available or has been given in public to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry.

· The Law Officers are a significant part of the Jersey problem. They combine the role of prosecutors with that of legal advisors to the Jersey Government. There is an obvious conflict of interest when matters are alleged which affect the interests of the government. This conflict was seriously exposed during the police investigation into decades of concealed Child Abuse (Operation Rectangle) and has remained a problem ever since. The Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry has apparently been told of changes which have been made since that time which it is claimed bring more independence to the prosecution process. Many observers see these as cosmetic and unlikely to inspire public confidence. Jersey needs a fully independent prosecution service, which is unfettered and uncompromised by any other responsibilities. As recommended to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry HERE.

· There is no general understanding of exactly what is the significance or intended effect of senior legal figures being appointed by the Crown. (Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff/Solicitor General/Attorney General etc.)  There might be a general expectation that their role is to represent the interests of the British Crown in Jersey but instead they sometimes appear to position themselves as the defenders of Jersey interests against British intrusion. It is unclear where their loyalties lie or where they should lie.

· There are deep conflicts in the role of the Bailiff as (unelected) speaker in the island’s parliament, as a (unelected) representative of the island and the senior judge.

· So far as is generally understood, HM Lieutenant Governor is the representative of British Crown interests with a responsibility for monitoring good governance and the proper administration of justice. Yet he now appears to be appointed by the very people he is expected to oversee. There is little information on how the Governor’s duties are discharged in practice As reported by VFC HERE. For example, there is no transparent system of reporting on the activity of the Governor in respect of those things, which he is apparently supposed to observe, or what conclusions if any the Governor has reached and what actions he is taking in consequence. No information is available on the qualifications or training which is required for the Governor to discharge this particular role nor is it clear why a retired General should be considered the best person for the position?

· Democratic participation in the island appears to be low. There is a high level of non-registration for voting and a low level of turnout at elections. The electoral system appears to be tilted in favour of “Old Jersey” interests in the rural parishes. Cynicism around the processes of democracy and governance is widespread.

· Taken together much of the above presents a picture of a system of governance, which has a number of semi-feudal elements, few of which are accountable by any visible means.

· When the Jersey establishment believes that its position is being challenged it sometimes reacts ruthlessly, and in a manner which is unfettered by considerations of ethics, fairness or even legality. And nobody appears to be able to stop them from doing it.

· The Jersey political and public sector appears to have an entrenched culture of inertia. Many witnesses to the on-going Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry have provided evidence of the extreme challenges which can face anyone attempting to deliver change. Progressive innovation is rarely encouraged and is sometimes (more often than not) punished. There is a long history of reports and inquiries, which have produced sensible recommendations that have not been implemented or acted upon. It should be remembered that the Jersey Government argued that the current Committee of Inquiry was unnecessary because “lessons had been learned” and the necessary changes made. The Inquiry is only taking place because the Jersey Government’s view was overruled by a rare backbench revolt that now appears to be well justified by the evidence. The past experience of external reviews too often consists of well-evidenced and constructive reports gathering dust on departmental shelves because nobody has the skills, inclination or support to take them forward or because those with responsibility are fearful of the consequences of doing so.

· There is a conspicuous lack of any consistent external and independent inspection regime with transparent reporting and follow-up. Increasingly in the UK public services, including those providing criminal justice, are subject to regular independent scrutiny. This is far less frequent in Jersey, which arguably needs this type of attention more than most regions of the UK. Where such arrangements have been in place in the past they appear in some cases to have quietly “died a death.” (For instance our Police Force hasn't been HMIC inspected for the best part of 8 years)

· For whatever reason the Jersey media appears to be noticeably non-intrusive and, for the most part, uncritical in respect of the Jersey authorities. If any further disturbing issues emerge in the island it is unlikely to be as a result of investigative journalism. There will be little that the Committee of Inquiry can do about this but it adds strength to the question of who will bring intrusive scrutiny to bear upon government/judicial actions/inactions/corruption in the future?

· It should be remembered that while some of the above raises fine points of constitutional theory, this is not an academic exercise. The well-being of vulnerable people is at stake. The Committee of Inquiry exists because there were decades of preventable suffering in institutions operated by the Jersey Government, and nobody did anything about it. When people subsequently attempted to do something about it they have given evidence, to the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry, that they encountered a range of difficulties and lack of support from the Jersey authorities, and among those creating the difficulties were people who purported to represent the Crown. Unless there is significant change there is a high probability that further preventable suffering will occur.

· Whatever the Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry recommends, if matters are left to the Jersey authorities, most of the required changes will not happen. Change will only be achieved by strong and authoritative external intervention, followed by intrusive monitoring backed by some form of potential sanction. The Committee of Inquiry should not under estimate the extent to which entrenched Jersey interests will seek to resist, obstruct and subvert any reforms that it recommends.

Have we got it right or do you have different priorities? Let us know.

PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY TADIER – 7th October 2015

Deputy Tadier has said that there are no hard feelings after the Bailiff, William Bailhache, misunderstood a comment made during a States Debate in which Deputy Tadier was presenting a Reform Jersey amendment seeking to reverse some of the cuts to benefits being put forward by the Social Security Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel.

‘In my speech, I stated that we all look to different inspirational figures for our moral and political guidance (be they philosophers, economists or reigious figures). I named two such figures – the American moral and political philosopher John Rawles and Jesus Christ, both of whom talked about the need for social justice and looking after the poor, the sick and vulnerable.’

‘I used the example of the well known motto “What would Jesus do? (WWJD)” or “what would Rawles do?”, before stating, rhetorically (and ironically), “Of course, Jesus would be at the Tory Conference or an IoD dinner.” Before I could finish my train of argument – “Or would he?” I was interrupted by the Bailiff, who said my comment was offensive and asked me to withdraw the comment. I did not as the comment was not offensive, but standard political discourse - as he would have found out had I been allowed to continue. This was a contravention of my parliamentary privilege and it is an important principle that elected members be able to express themselves freely without fear or prejudice.’

Talking about the Bailiff’s intervention, Deputy Tadier said, ‘The Bailiff is not the Pope, and like all of us, he is fallable. He simply got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion. Had he followed Standing Orders to the letter (see below 109 /3 and 4)) he would have asked me to clarify my comments rather than asking me to retract them, and he would have understood the point I was making. Thankfully, after the hour’s recess, the Bailiff had obviously thought better of it and I was able to contiune where I had left off.’

‘I am grateful for the solidarity shown by States Members, particularly the Chief Minister, who came to my defense, saying he did not think the comments were offensive, simply a political illustration and maybe a direct challenge to the Chief Minister’s policies as a Christian.’

‘The whole thing was quite Kafkaesque. I bare no ill feeling to the Bailiff. I was just slightly frustrated at being impeded in doing my job, in this case, of robustly fighting the Government’s austerity measures.’

Others have made comment that this is not the first time that the Bailiff has overstepped the mark into the political, and it is likely that this latest episode will add to growing calls for the States to be chaired by someone other than a senior member of the Judiciary.

-ENDS-

Appendix

109 Presiding officer's power to direct withdrawal of offensive etc words81

(1) If the presiding officer believes that the member of the States speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(2) If a member of the States, believing that the member speaking has used offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, has, on a point of order, drawn the attention of the presiding officer to them, the presiding officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(3) The presiding officer may ask the member who was speaking to explain

the sense in which he or she used the words.

(4) The presiding officer shall then determine whether or not the words are

offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly.

(5) If the presiding officer determines that the words are offensive,

objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly, he or she –

(a) shall direct the member to withdraw the words; and

(b) may direct the member to apologise.

(6) The member must withdraw the words and, if so directed, apologise.

Deputy Trevor Pitman speaks on Jersey so-called "Justice."

Deputy Trevor Pitman delivered a speech in Jersey's Parliament on Wednesday 25th September 2013 while debating the proposition below.

For those with an interest in how Jersey is run, and who runs it, then please listen to/read Deputy Pitman's speech and you might want to ask why none of Jersey's State Media have reported on some of the subjects contained in it?

To include, according to Deputy Pitman, a child abuse victim of Haut de la Garenne being told "if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison." 

Possibly one of the most, "to the point" speeches made in modern times during a States session spelling out who holds the real power in Jersey, which as regular readers will be aware, is the alleged corrupt and politicised, not fit for purpose, so-called "Justice" system and its unelected, unaccountable officials.

VFC credit TJW for this recording.

 2. Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013)

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion that, within the Executive branch of Government, the Chief Minister is responsible for justice policy and resources, as clarified in the accompanying report.

2.1.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is ironic, after allowing a lot of people to be betrayed yet again, as we did earlier, here we are talking about justice and yet it is all going to be done and dusted in about 10 minutes.  The fact is, in my opinion and in a growing number of the victims of the Jersey justice system, there is zero accountability to those at the top of the justice system in Jersey.  It is a very scary, frightening fact.  I do not know if the Chief Minister kids himself, but he is not in control here.  The political power in this Island lies with the law office; it is an absolute fact, certainly as far as enforcement of its will.  As has been said, and I never used to believe this, but it is all too often a tool of oppression.  It is a great example here today of how we could be saving money and how we do not need the Bailiff; the Greffier and his Assistant are proving that admirably.  We do not need any individual in a red cloak.  I will be quite honest, the reason I did not come to the special sitting last week, I find it highly offensive to see a judge, any judge - and this is not a personal thing - as our first citizen in the 21st century.  It is absolutely ludicrous.  I supported Senator Farnham’s idea for a Minister for Justice, but this is one of those watered-down fudges, and I think he is putting a brave face on and trying to be nice about perhaps convincing himself, wishing to convince himself that this is all going to move in a positive direction.  I think he is mistaken in that.  Senator Gorst, well, I told him yesterday I was not going to support this because I voted for him, as he knows, and I have been appalled that I did vote for him.  He is, in my view - I have to say that or I will get into trouble - utterly too weak to ensure justice in this Island.  If Members ask themselves when do you hear the Chief Minister talk about justice, speak out about it and upholding it?  Practically never.  You cannot go against the rule of the Bailiff.  It is one of the most striking things when you come into this Assembly: the ridiculous and quite offensive deference that is given to someone just because he is a judge.  Let us put it quite clearly: the Bailiff deserves no such deference, any Bailiff.  He is just a judge, and yet he can interfere, he can block what elected representatives to this Assembly say and ask.  As we saw yesterday in a quite embarrassing display, the justice system in this Island is so appalling that when the Bailiff fails appallingly, you can only go and take those failings to the Bailiff.  It is a bit like déjà vu when I remember back years ago when Senator Syvret was forced out of the States for 6 months, in 1996 I think it was.  Who could he ultimately appeal to about that?  Probably the same man who many would say was instrumental in him being removed from that Assembly.  This cannot be trusted to the Chief Minister’s Department because the Chief Minister just does not appear to have the will, the determination and the courage to do the job.  He is too weak.  That might upset some people, but I have to speak the truth, that is what we are meant to do here, are we not?  Where is the judicial accountability now?  There is none whatsoever.  We have a U.K. Minister for Justice who is meant to intervene when he should but he does nothing, and you cannot go through an appeal system.  We heard a really brilliant example of how the Jersey justice system is dysfunctional when we had to hear the desperation ... if you do not get what you think you should have, you can go to the Privy Council or then to Strasbourg, like those poor victims up there today.  It is a bit late by then because you cannot challenge failings properly.  People have had their lives ruined by then.  Is the Chief Minister going to put that right?  No, because he is one of those who I believe strongly is absolutely frightened to death of the aura of the Bailiff and all that it suggests.  The Bailiff has only got that deference from people because of the dual role.  We talk about in this report from the Chief Minister that you have got to have that independence between Judiciary and politics. 

[11:30]

Does he not ever look at the individual and what that represents sitting in that chair every session, the hypocrisy and absolute comical farce of what he is saying?  I cannot remember who said it, it might have been Deputy Tadier, it might have been Deputy S. Pitman, but you would have a Minister still being controlled on issues of justice by an unelected judge.  There is no place for this in the 21st century.  I am sorry the Deputy of Grouville cannot see the problem with it; just about any other right-thinking person can see the problem with it: it is a person wearing 2 hats at one time, it is an unelected judge being involved where he has absolutely no right.  It might have been okay in the 17th century when we were all meant to tug our forelock to our betters, but it is not okay now.  Well, I could not tug my forelock, but there we go; I may doff my cap.  I cannot afford a cap, but there we go.  It makes me so frustrated to say we will happily sit here and discuss ourselves for weeks on end, we will discuss dog mess for hours or days, and justice ... hardly anyone speaks.  Let us spell out the facts again: there are only about 5 of us in here who ever stand up for justice, and we are made out to be some kind of radicals, we are out to destroy known civilisation.  No, for those of us who talk about justice, it is because we care about our Island.  The rest, and I am sorry, that is 95 per cent of the States Assembly, fall into 2 categories: people who just keep their head down, they are too scared; to protect the status quo they will say nothing.  Or, it has to be said, people who perhaps do not care about justice at all, which is even worse.  Some of those people who we were debating earlier said to me yesterday: “For too many people, it is only when an injustice happens to them that they realise what is going on in this Island.”  That is because in the mainstream media they do not report on the true facts.  Again, they have got a huge responsibility, they have more power than we have but they do not talk about the real issues: “Let us just keep attacking the 4 or 5 loony lefties who keep going on about child abuse and the dual role.”  If I am to support this, Chief Minister, what are you going to do about all that?  What are you going to do about all these issues?  As we heard, the Chief Minister cannot go against the word of the Bailiff, so how is this being under his sway, how is his control going to differ?  I was at that meeting the Deputy referred to; he acknowledged there were huge areas that needed to be changed, but would he do them?  We have Jurats elected by lawyers; that is crazy, it does not even happen in Guernsey, and some people are always mocking Guernsey for what they do.  How can you have lawyers choosing people they are then going to be pitching to win their case to later?  It is absolutely bonkers.  The Jurat Law; what stops you being a Jurat?  If you have received assistance from the 1948 Poor Law, it does not matter if you are Jimmy Savile, you are in, you are a pillar of society.  That is what it comes down to, in essence: no convictions against Mr. Savile so he probably would have been welcomed as a pillar of the community.  Sorry if some of this is uncomfortable, but it is true.  I have got so many cases now on justice, I admit - and I will use this to apologise to some people I have not even been able to get back to, because I am being overwhelmed and I know Deputy Higgins has got a huge number - they are diverse and they are shocking.  What is being done about it?  What have successive Chief Ministers done about the injustice in this Island?  Nothing, absolutely nothing.  Justice in Jersey is made up as we go ... a phenomenon which some people may not be aware of: judge-made law.  It is a great example of what happens in Jersey: rulings, decisions given by judges that have absolutely no visible link to the laws that were passed by Assemblies such as ours.  Who challenges it?  Is the Chief Minister going to challenge it?  No, because he is not strong enough, and I put my trust in him, and this is not a personal thing either.  I put my trust in him when he was making his pitch to be Chief Minister and on the key issues, justice, like for the abuse victims, he has really done nothing.  He expressed his satisfaction, his contentment with the case against former Senator Syvret.  I do not agree with a lot of what Mr. Syvret has done, but I will stand with him on justice issues.  Regularly, there is a gentleman who sits up there who can show you his many consistent statements made to the police about, as a child, being pinned down and having blood trickling down his legs after he had been abused.  The person who he alleges, and more than a dozen others allege is an abuser, is still employed by the States of Jersey, has still got access to children.  How is the Chief Minister and his legal team, who are meant to be doing redress, treating that man?  Well, he is accused of never being at Haut de la Garenne.  It is only other people who were at Haut de la Garenne who would remember him there.  Has he had sympathy?  Has he had compassion?  No.  I will tell you what has happened to him: he has been threatened by the legal team that if he did not drop his allegations, he would be prosecuted and could end up in prison.  Justice in Jersey?  Utter farce.  Yet we are satisfied for the secret court case against Mr. Syvret.  Of course, one of those people given such huge financial assistance is the very man that so many people have accused.  That same case -if we are talking justice, Chief Minister - why is it that there is a letter in existence pitching for individuals to come in and put the case together and decide how they would get Mr. Syvret?  Five people invited; one of them refused.  Proxies; are those what they were?  I happened to believe that some of them, certainly a couple, have got cases for what has been done to them.  They may have cases to answer on the accusations against them.  The best way to have done that would be before a court.  As I have said before, then Mr. Syvret could have been taken to account if what he said was completely wrong and those people could have earned justice.  But no, what do we do?  Justice in Jersey, Chief Minister, we have secret court cases.  I do hope he is going to do the decent thing and resign when we get the true figures about how much this has all cost, because the question is already in for next session.  He wants to control justice.  Why is it that data protection and this access ... and it is all very well for him to chuckle over there, perhaps it is how he usually takes  justice.  Why is it that data protection ... this assistance is not available to all?  One of the individuals who was given money - Members might not know - is the scourge of innocent people in this Island.  He has been intercepted by the police threatening ex-partners; does not get charged.  He sends out posters to decent, ordinary people about threats to women; does not get charged.  He puts hate sites up on the internet which emails stolen from one of our own Members end up on.  Does not get charged.  When I went and made a complaint about him, the senior police officer went and looked and he was shocked at the amount of complaints against this individual, so he could see it was just not me.  Put the case to the Attorney General’s office; no case to answer.  Perhaps that explains, for all his faults, why Mr. Syvret went down the route he did, because it all comes back down to this image, hardly anyone wants to risk challenging Jersey’s fluffy image as a shining beacon of democracy, as I think former Senator Perchard said.  The way you improve your image is by confronting the things that are wrong, and that is what me, and those few other Members who stand up and talk about justice, do.  Of course, we get pilloried by the Jersey Evening Post, pilloried by other Members, former judges.  There is a wonderful little clip if Members get bored: go and look at YouTube and they will see a wonderful little clip of a former chief judge in Jersey and he is giving a talk to, I assume, the Law Society or a collection of lawyers, and he laughs and he gets a huge, great ripple of applause: “When I was a judge and the law was silent, I did what everyone did, I made it up because that is what everyone else did”; is that justice?  People laugh.  A chief judge, or a former chief judge ... I must not get into trouble, I must go down the magistrate route of today, confusing individuals.  It is funny, just on the news today the former assistant magistrate is out of prison already, laughing all the way to the bank, while those people we have sent away with their tails between their legs are going home.  One of them is on to income support as a result, she was telling me.  This makes me furious, these tick-box propositions that come back pretending to do something when the proof of the pudding is that this Chief Minister never stands up for justice ever, even when it is wrong.  He is controlled by the law office, in my view.  He does not have the courage to challenge things that are wrong. Why am I not going to support this?  It is not because I do not support Senator Farnham’s original idea, I do, though I ask the question, how many in this Assembly could do that job, 4 or 5, because most - and I mean that as no offence to any particular Member - have not got the courage and the conviction to stand up, as I do, so often.  But this is just a fob, it is a fudge.  It is another one of the Chief Minister’s cop-outs.  Why did we have a Minister for External Relations when we have not even got a Minister for Children?  Far more important.  Why have we not got a Minister for Justice?  Far more important than giving someone a title to do a job that, let us be honest, Senator Ozouf has been doing a pretty good job before we even had this Assistant External Affairs Minister.  I say to Members, do not support this, force the Chief Minister to come back with something that is fit for the 21st century.  Make him come back with something which will provide justice for all.  I think it was Deputy Le Fondré who today said when would justice purely relate to how much money people have got?  Well, that happens all the time in Jersey.  Many of us in St. Helier see constituents.  If they cannot afford to pay for lawyers and they get legal aid, they really may as well give up, because you will get a lawyer who is generally completely not interested or they are so young and inexperienced, it will probably do more harm to your case.  If you are in the middle, you are even worse.  Some people would say the Jersey system is bent.  I do not say it is bent, because if you imply that, then you think it could be put back into shape.  The Jersey justice system needs a full Turks and Caicos style intervention by the U.K.  We need the U.K. Minister for Justice to fulfil his mandate.  We need the Lieutenant Governor to fulfil the powers that he has got - and I like this Lieutenant Governor, I have had some lengthy conversations with him - but if he does not step in when he should, then what are we paying a great deal of money for?  We need a Minister for Justice, but I think it should be appointed from the U.K. because it is entrenched here, it is so entwined, political power with judicial power, that it cannot be done safely otherwise.  Now I think I will sit down and let our former Chief Judge attack me, as he does so often.

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.