Skip to main content

Jersey - the Crown Dependencies and conflicts of interest

I have linked to a story on the Channel Islands TV station which in part says:
A Jersey accountant jailed in 2007 for six years for money laundering has had his conviction quashed.

His defence council took his case to the Jersey Court Of Appeal but it was rejected. They then took it to the Privy Council - the highest court islanders can appeal to - where it was finally quashed.

The judge, Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Nice was branded 'sarcastic, mocking and patronising.' He interrupted Mr Michel 273 times as he was giving evidence. It's now expected to cost the Jersey tax payer millions of pounds. Mr Michel's defence lawyer says in retrospect, he should have objected more at the time.

Click for the video.

What I find interesting is the unquestioning reliance of the TV station on judicial decisions. There have always been biased judges.

What is most important to hear is the solicitors explaining how he didn't want to challenge the judge in case he upset the judge.

This is one of the unusual conflicts of interest that people don't initially spot in the legal process. To appeal a decision upset the judge. Hence there is some resistance to doing this because lawyers want the goodwill of the judiciary to make a living.

It is interesting contrasting the subtle negotiation of lawyers with the somewhat more robust approach of the Justice for Families support for Litigants in Person where the system is confronted face on.

Admittedly this results in me getting a lot of critism from particularly LJs Wall and Thorpe, but it has resulted in something like 10 cases going through the system to the European Court.

The difficulties in secret courts have lead to a culture of complacency. This is more visible as a culture in Jersey in all the courts. ALong with Stuart (the refugee in my flat) and his various cases I have evidence of a number of other egregious failures of the judicial and prosecutory system in Jersey.

The story is also on CHannel Online of Stuarts case where the journalist puts forward some poujadist nonsense against the arguments for the rule of law.

At least in the UK we have some journalists with some backbone and willingness to challenge the establishment. In the Channel Islands it appears missing from the media - who after all don't want to bit the hand that feeds them.

Much like lawyers and the judiciary really.



Firstly thanks for the support you are showing Senator Syvret and the "good" people of Jersey.

As far as that Channel Television interview goes, well that's about as good as it gets over here.

You are correct when you say our media won't challenge the establishment. Why do you think Jersey has got so many Blogsites? I would guess Jersey has more Blogsites than the entire Channel Islands.

This, in my opinion, and experience is because our entire local media are in the pocket of our ruling elite.

Just listen to the BBC phone in from 12 - 1 every weekday, (which I am prevented from taking part in) and as soon as a caller mentions the name "Stuart Syvret" you can almost hear the presenter's arse twitching at the same time as his finger moving over to the cut off button.

However if a caller wants to talk about the old war days or the price of bottled water then they can talk as long as they like. But don't mention Senator Syvret, Child Abuse, Child murders, HDLG, mass murderers, a bent and crooked judical system, a partizan media, or any dribble like that.

Thanks again for your support from a "good" Jersey person.

Endgame said…
John, I echo VFC thanks for your support of Stuart Syvret, sadly not one his fellow States members appear to have the courage or integrity to give any support.

My comment relates to this latest example of the dysfunctional judicial system in Jersey.

Will this be used as part of you and Stuart's case against Jack Straw to demonstrate how badly the people of Jersey are served the lack of proper governance and stewardship that is the responsibility of the UK government?

Will you be providing this as yet further evidence to the Parliamentary Committee looking into the constitutional arrangements for Jersey?

Keep up the good work and again thanks for your support, many islanders appreciate this
Ade said…
Dear Mr Hemmings

The person you have harboured not only is fleeing from (inter alia) the minor crime of not having a driving licence but is a man who does not hesitate in naming persons of guilty of quite heinous crimes who then are incapable of clearing their name becuase your guest does not have any finacial resources and therefore any victory would be purely phyric.

You know a man by the company he keeps and in your case Mr Hemmings you are with a poor deluded fool
john said…
The fact that Stuart does not have substantial financial resources does not prevent someone from suing him to clear their name. It is simply that they would not get a mass of damages although they would be able to clear their name.
Ade said…
John if you bother to read my post you will see I mentioned a victory would be phyric - I don't know if you know the cost of a defamation action but we are talking with a starting figure of over 100k. Having to pay that would be a burden on most people and include all those he accused - note he does not name any millionaires - I wonder why?
john said…
I know the cost of a defamation action and it need not be that high.
ruderabs said…
Firstly you either have cheaper lawyers than we have here or you are out of touch with reality.
Secondly married person - shall I sue some person who has defamed me who most people think is insane and waste our family monies as I will not recover costs or think back to what my family need?
No brainer really isn't it?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…