Justice for Jersey – High Court Mistrial?

On March 17, British MP John Hemming and Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret appeared in the High Court to present testimony and evidence of the ineffectiveness of the Jersey legal system.

The application was made to force Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, to intervene with issues stemming from child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, the illegal sacking of Graham Power, the harassment and besmirching of Lenny Harper and the basically inept ability of the good-old-boy network, run by Phil and Bill Bailhache, to provide justice in Jersey.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the two judge panel – Lord Richards and Justice Tugendhat – should never been allowed to preside over the hearing. Both judges should have recused themselves or been immediately disqualified.

Lord Richards has a history of accusations against him for sexual perversion. He was tried for exposing himself to a woman. This alone should have disqualified him because he can’t be seen as impartial based on that experience. He should never be allowed to hear cases related to sexual deviancy.

Justice Tugendhat, it seems, served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – knows the whole good-old-boy network AND was appointed to that office by none other - Phil Bailhache! So, Tugendhat can be impartial? I think not.

And, why do you suppose that Tugendhat didn’t reveal this little tidbit until the opening of the hearing? This hearing has been looming for some months!

Now the real circus begins.

The hearing was scheduled as the final business of the day for the court. Two hours were blocked for the presentation of evidence. One has to wonder why then, Senator Syvret was actually limited to one hour.

Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant's case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number of points, which I had already covered - and introduced digressions down paths, which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant's case to be left unstated.

The judges rejected the Application on a single, narrow, ground; that we should attempt a Judicial Review of the Jersey judiciary - before that self-same judiciary.

Now, how the hell would that work? The whole purpose of the hearing was due to the fact the Jersey judiciary can’t be trusted.

No opinion was rendered on the facts and evidence presented and the judges didn’t comment on the duties of Jack Straw.

So, not a total defeat - just a new skirmish to plan.

John and I are already working-up a substantive Judicial Review case to bring before the court in Jersey - which will be fascinating in itself - as they'll have to produce a court competent to hear the matter.

And - we are going to bring a much broader range of complaints to the attention of Jack Straw - some deeply alarming material. And when he fails again to act on that - then we bring a fresh Judicial Review application against Straw - on all the broader issues.

As Stuart oft says, “you can’t make this stuff up!”

Senator Stuart Syvret Blog