Search This Blog

Monday, 25 June 2012

"Judicial Corruption Rumbles On In Jersey"

"Madness & Insanity In The Jersey Courts"

I think it would be very difficult for Barking Bill Bailhache to convince....
even his closest allies, that he has not got a screw loose.

'barking' Bill Bailhache
Cyril, myself, and a number of supporters turned up at the Royal Court this afternoon to witness
what can only be described as "Utter Malfeasance"

We had alleged in a blog posting on the 15th June that Cyril's trial tapes had been doctored.
What we didn't disclose is that we were pretty sure the two policemen giving evidence against Cyril, had lied in their statements and committed perjury at court!!!

Myself and Cyril drew up a document last night for Cyril to read out in court today containing his allegations and supporting evidence. This is below.

As you can see, these are two extremely serious allegations with the most profound consequences for the Jersey Judiciary, Police Force, and indeed, the entire 'alleged' Justice System.
If the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary got wind of this, and were not corrupted like the Jersey Authorities, it would be 'Goodnight Vienna' for grubby little Jersey.

What happened next was utterly astonishing.
Bill Bailhache started wading into Cyril with all sorts of tosh trying to defend his islands corruption. Cyril stood his ground and gave very reasoned answers to Bailhache.

Cyril reiterated that these most serious allegations must be looked into, but we knew Bailhache was going to have none of it.

After some argument from both sides, Bailhache adjourned to consider matters.
When he and his two side kicks returned, we sat through five minutes of the most
stunning horseshit ever to pass from the lips of a judge [sic].

Bailhache proceeded to explain that, 'even if' the two police officers had lied in their statements, and had indeed perjured themselves in court, what they had lied about would NOT have had any bearing on the outcome of the trial!!!!!

Then turning to the matter of the doctored trial tapes, Bailhache said that whatever we had alleged was missing from them "Was Irrelevant" and would not have any bearing on the outcome of the appeal!!!!!

The above two paragraphs are my recollections and are not verbatim,
but pretty damn accurate.

The ramifications are imponderable.

In a nutshell, our Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache, is refusing to have these monumental crimes looked into, much preferring to march ahead with the prosecution of Cyril for a £30 parking ticket than to deal with the most prolific of Government corruption.

As Stuart says
"You just couldn't make this shit up!"

And now, A word from Cyril

Two cops lying, recordings with bits missing, a Magistrate (sic) who refuses to confirm her oath of office, an obstructive Greffier substitute, and a so called justice system accessible only by those who can read and understand old French legalese.

never mind eh!
yeah right, I will not comply with such bollocks (crown vs virgin {sex pistols}).



  1. The Deputy Bailiff gave me a generous 4 weeks to prepare for appeal,
    a month is a long time in the life of a pocket book.

    any worthy Judge would have ordered that book be brought to court immediately.


  2. I hope you have concrete evidence that Bailhache said exactly what you have quoted, because you realise that if it can be proved in the transcripts or by other means, he has just sunk his own boat.

    Police officers committing perjury under oath and allowed to walk out of court with the blessing of the judge ?


  3. Ian/Cyril.

    This whole island administration, and in particular, the judiciary looks to be utterly lawless. As for the transcripts let's hope we get a look at THESE

  4. From a self confessed "people watcher" who can normally see both sides of an argument it has to be said that I am rather perplexed here.

    Has the magistrate become so elevated in his own opinions and thoughts that he can ride roughshod over the common man knowing that the Law Officers will close ranks with each other or ....

    ... and that is the cause of my perplexion.

    I cannot fathom any other reason as to why a magistrate would continue with a trial knowing that witnesses had committed perjury (OK, "allegedly" ... sigh) and therefore the case becoming unsound.

    Are the Law Officers not aware that there are now people critically viewing their actions and with the nouse to have a forum to report upon their failings?

    We all know that practitioners of the Legal System attempt at finding holes in cases or finding some ancient law (statute?) to ensure the best result for their clients but it is becoming very clear that the Legal Officers are not very happy when the Common Man (not an insult Cyril\Ian) starts to get involved.

    I recall watching a documentary on the best "defender" that Manchester United has ever employed. Not a football player but a lawyer who was\is able to get defendants off of the most obvious charges by using technicalities. One hearing involved a policeman giving damning evidence for the prosecution. The defending legal team noticed that he was chewing whilst in the witness box. On asking what he was eating whilst giving evidence he replied that is was a cough\sore throat sweet. On asking further questions it transpired that he was actually chewing gum. It was then put to the bench that clearly this officer has lied to the court on oath and therefore questions his integrity. If he were to lie over something like this can the court be assured that everything else he has said been truthful? The bench agreed and the case was thus dismissed.

    The magistrates are either utterly arrogant that they believe themselves to be untouchable or beyond belief in stupidity.

    And I look forward to reading the unabridged transcripts from this hearing.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  5. "And I look forward to reading the unabridged transcripts from this hearing."

    I am in no doubt that these will be doctored also, these are more damning than the trial tapes!!!

    And as I know from previous experience, the Judicial Greffe of the Royal Court has a propensity for doctoring the tapes of court proceedings!!!

  6. Do you still have the other recordings? I would like to have a look with some software to see\hear the joins.

    The Beano is not the Rag

  7. So far,
    they have refused to give us a copy of the recordings....

    I wonder why? :)

  8. Wow!! Speachless. Irrelevant to whom? Those recordings of this appeal will by dynamite.

  9. "So far, they have refused to give us a copy of the recording"

    Of course they have - I should have known better ... If they do surface give us a shout and I'll see what I can find .. :-)

    The Beano is not the Rag

  10. Hi Beano et al,
    A little clarification.

    Magistrate(sic) Shaw will be presumed not to have be aware of PC 252 Mark O'Neill and PC 283 David O'Briens' perjury in court on 27th April 2012. This presumption is suspect because of her dodgy double act with L O'Donnell (crown), as prosecutor he would have seen O'Neills pocket book therefore would have known of the malfeasance contained within.
    The Policemen gave evidence regarding another charge which was withdrawn by the crown, however, Shaw used that evidence to convict me of a parking charge.

    O'Donnell knew of the damming evidence in O'Neills pocket book and did everything he could think of to avoid this comming out in court, during a break he even tried to persuade me that O'Neill should not be called as a witness.
    Shaws bizarre behaviour on that day included bolting from court, between O'Briens and O,Neills testimony, head down and at great speed,on returning she had a cock and bull story about an anonymous phone call warning of disruption in court that day, classic diversionary tactics! Not content with these methods Shaw then restricted what I could ask O'Neill questions about.

    Quoted from the transcripts;

    Shaw to me;
    "You will be able to ask PC O'Neill some questions. You've got a copy of his statement, so you can ask him questions on that."

    Shaw to O'Neill;
    "PC O'Neill, the situation is that the presecution do not wish to call you, but they are not tendering your evidence."

    (say that again Bridget, this time in English)

    "However, the defendant does have a copy of your statement and,therefore, he is free to ask you some question on that."

    Shaw makes no mention of the contemporaneous notes in his pocket book or that I had a right to see and question those notes (all 7 lines)

    As a so called litigant in person (no legal represtation) a Magistrate or Judge has a duty to assist me and not to restrict me.

    It was Bill Bailhache in court yesterday who obstructed justice by not ordering O'Neills' pocket book be brought before the court for examination

    commonly called cyril hehe

  11. Bailhache said that whatever we had alleged was missing from them "Was Irrelevant" and would not have any bearing on the outcome of the appeal!!!!!

    Au contraire Mr Bailhache. If the audio was doctored then who had the ability and why, if so irrelevant?

  12. Bailache has his mind already made up, the appeal will fail, simples

  13. Bridget is about as bright as a toc h lamp so David needs to cover her tracks

  14. Mr DPJ Le Heuse is the official doctor of the magistrates recordings

  15. Lets face it, our doctor could be one of dozens of states slim balls who have access to these recordings. Unless the room/vault where they are stored records everyones card access, then there is little or no chance of finding out the culprit. Or even narrowing them down for that matter.

    What we do know is that it had to be someone with enough knowledge of law to know what to cut from the tapes to guarantee a failed appeal. This is exactly what they were doing when I first caught them out in 1997.

    I wonder how the transcribers in London (Marten - Walsh - Cherer) are feeling round about now? Bet they can't wait to be investigated!

  16. Ian you will not get any Tom dick or Harry with access to the recordings actually tampering.

    I can only see one or two at the most being involved. One who will benefit and one idiot daft enough to actually carry out the task.

  17. Me too, but this is not to protect one person, this is to protect the whole of the parking scam which is worth many millions a year to the halfwits.

    That is why they are pushing Cyril the whole nine yards, Cyril ripped their laws apart in this case, and he did it 'using' their laws. They do not want the truth coming out, that it's all one big scam.