Search This Blog

Friday, 17 June 2011

"Stuart Syvret Gets A Right Royal Shafting In Court"

The events of today in the Royal Court were just too bizarre for anyone to get their head around.
I will simply leave you with Stuart's written account.
Incredible Jersey!!!

Advocate Stephen Baker
Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said....

"Right - how did it go in court today?

The predictable result, of course. Application to quash thrown out.

But apart from that - the events of today were startlingly useful - better than I dared hope.

Of particular interest were the mutually exclusive effects of the judgment - which essentially means - if correct - that I can't have reviewed the legality of the decisions of the Attorney General as a stand-alone matter - because I can already question them in the criminal appeal - but I can't question them in the criminal appeal - because general questions of the lawfulness or otherwise of the Attorney General's decisions have been deemed "not relevant" in the criminal appeal.

How great is that?

But - it gets better.

The judge fully accepted the truth and honesty of Graham Power's affidavit.

And - he asked the prosecuting Advocate, Stephen Baker, if the Attorney General's Office did too?

And Baker said yes!

It gets better.

The judge agreed that Graham Power's affidavit is admitted as evidence in the proceedings. (not, of course, that that is going to be much use - well, not in this case anyway - because the question of the lawfulness of the conduct of the Attorney General has been deemed "not relevant".) So at least the essential validity of the document and thus its evidential value is now established. So all they can do is quibble over the accuracy of Mr. Power's memory. Which is great - I'm sure his memory is fine - and, hey - why, if accurate recall of the facts is disputed, why, great; let's get it all tested in open court. (the next case.)

But - but - but - and this was so exciting I had to resist the urge to hop from one foot to the other, so electrifying was it - Stephen Baker gave an answer to a question from the judge.

His answer nuked the prosecution.

I've repeatedly asked for disclosure of evidence throughout the whole case. 90% of that disclosure has been refused. Amongst the material I have sought - entirely correctly - was the evidence of relevance to my abuse-of-process and malicious prosecution arguments. Quite specifically, I have repeatedly asked for - and been refused the evidence relevant to Graham Power's suspension.

I argued that such evidence might show exactly the kind of unlawful conflict of interests on the part of William Bailhache's, that we see in Graham's affidavit.

Stephen Baker has repeatedly refused to make any such disclosures - on the grounds that he has examined and considered all such evidence - and he can therefore state to the court that none of it contained anything of relevance to the defence arguments.

So what question did the judge ask him today?

"So, there is nothing of any relevance to Mr. Syvret's arguments in Graham Power's statements to Wiltshire?"

Baker's answer:

"I don't know sir - I haven't read them."

Ahh - Strasbourg - here we come!!!

Of all of these various court battles - I can state with some confidence - today's hearing is the first Strasbourg dead-cert. (with more to come.)

Hmmmm.... all of those very serious and onerous responsibilities upon a prosecution to consider all the available evidence - and to very carefully determine it's disclosure value to the defence - on all kinds of grounds, for example, relevance to any possible breach of the accused's ECHR rights.

And the prosecution now confesses - "it hasn't read the evidence" -not withstanding nearly two years worth of confident assertions that none of it was "of relevance" or deserving of disclosure to the accused.

Oh dear.


We also learned today, that in the Royal Court in Jersey, one is not permitted to wear SHORTS!!!


  1. some laws are more real than others,this is obvious when we think about it

    the laws of nature aka universal law (as best described by the laws of science)are the only real laws

    the reasons why are very simple
    1)they can not be broken
    2)they dont require our consent
    3)they are not man made

    all other laws are man made,can be broken and require our consent

    we can break down all other laws into a couple of groupings

    customary laws written laws
    aka aka
    law of the land law of the sea
    aka aka
    common law commercial law

    two separate columns with different attributes

    common law statutory law
    for for
    people companies
    is is
    lawful legal
    is is
    justice liability

    now take away the first column

    voila jersey


  2. that didn't turn out as i intended haha


  3. Baker is a cnut.

  4. Pretty sure we all know why Stephen Baker never read the evidence. He would be accountable if he did. He would know too much about what went on and would have to tell the truth if asked by a judge or face prosecution. Even Baker must know this will get to Strasbourg, and he might not want to be tarnished by the same brush as his masters.

  5. Stephen Baker has explained, in court, under oath, that he has: "examined and concidered ALL such evidence".

    Then yesterday in court under oath he admits: "I don't know sir, I haven't read them".

    This is blatant lying, in court, under oath....


  6. YES!!! Perjury

    But what it also is, is a widely accepted practice in Jersey. Any "Clan Member" who wishes to lie through their teeth to achieve their goal, is permitted.

    No repercussions, just a little oversight, nothing to worry about?

  7. Good afternoon Ian. What's your email address? No retreat. No surrender.