"JERSEY'S EVENING PROPAGANDA"
do you ever wonder why the (Jersey Evening Post) will not create a comments section for certain stories of vital importance to the people of Jersey ?
Disclaimer: the posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
Search This Blog
Monday, 13 June 2011
"Stuart Syvret In Court To Fight Jersey Corruption & Seek Redress"
Syvret in court to sue States
Stuart Syvret entering the Royal Court
In the video, Stuart explains the civil case against the States of Jersey
Former Senator Stuart Syvret was in court again today where he is suing the Chief Minister, the former Attorney General, the Council of Ministers and the Employment Board over what he claims was his unfair dismissal as Health Minister in 2007.
Syvret says those people had a duty to support him in that role - and they failed.
At the Royal Court Syvret had to show he had a legal right to claim compensation for losing his job.
He argues civil servants engaged in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse in the island which he was trying to expose - culminating in him being forced out of his job.
The presiding judge, Jonathan Sumption, was brought in because Syvret was adamant that no local judge would meet the test of objectivity. Although most of the morning was spent discussing Syvret's application for Sumption to recuse - in other words excuse - himself from the case due to apparent bias.
The grounds of this bias, according to Stuart Syvret lay in the fact that Sumption is friend and acquaintance of parties with an "interest" in the case - those being Sir Philip Bailhache, who was Bailiff between 1995 and 2009, Mr Michael Birt, the now Bailiff who was Deputy Bailiff from 2000 to 2009, Sir Philip's brother, Mr William Bailhache, who was Attorney General between 2000 and 2009, before becoming Deputy Bailiff and Mr Tim Le Cocq, who succeeded him as Attorney General.
Nevertheless, Jonathan Sumption refused to recuse himself, and the court went on to hear the defendants' application to get the case struck out.
The Solicitor General argued there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case, and that he was bringing his action too late.
Meanwhile, after much deliberation it became apparent that Syvret's case was actually centered around a claim for damages caused prior to his dismissal as a result of public authorities failing to discharge their duty of care towards him and causing him substantial emotional and psychological harm.
Hence the challenge for Mr Syvret, who represents himself, became to show that he had a legal right to compensation, on the presumption that his facts are true.
The question for Mr Sumption, meanwhile, became much narrower than initially thought. He will now have to determine whether the States do have such a duty of care - in which case it could go to a full trial- if not, the case would be struck out.
A judgement is expected early on Wednesday morning.
said...Court events today were pretty much predictable.
Apart - apparently - from one thing.
But firstly - the initial points.
I asked at the outset if people could twitter from the court - which was accepted - so that's a whole new departure for the administration of justice in Jersey - a first, small step towards making justice more open in this island.
Next the recusal application was rejected - then we went into the strike-out application - whereby the oligarchy argue my case should be thrown-out - and I argue it should go to a full hearing.
And a full hearing would - of course - mean that we get into examining - in open court - the evidence of the conduct of Jersey's civil service in their concealing of child abuse - in 2007.
But - this is where a sense of surprise seemed to permeate proceedings - and I had to fend-off repeated attempts to define my argument - to rail-road it down a path not of my choosing.
I think the establishment were somewhat confused. They seemed to have believed their own propaganda - and expected me to base my argument on a claim that challenged the events in the States assembly - which would, of course, have been futile - as parliamentary privilege dictates that a court cannot challenge the internal decisions of a legislature.
I knew that of course - which is why this case has always been based upon the unlawful conduct of the senior civil servants - and the unlawful conduct of the defendants in failing to control those civil servants - and the consequent damage I suffered simply as an ordinary person, trying to conscientiously carry-out my duties.
So now they're going to have to rush-off and come up with a new reason for striking-out the application.
Because if they don't - then we get a full trial of the conduct of the civil servants and of the failures of the Chief Minister, States Employment Board and Attorney General - in oppressing me - with their motivation of concealing child abuse.
Really - the oligarchy arguments today had an air of desperation - of floundering - about them. They seemed taken aback at the straightforward simplicity of my argument.
But - regardless - one way or another - the child abuse cover-ups are going to be exposed.