Search This Blog

Thursday, 3 January 2013

"PRIDE-less & PREJUDICE"

"The Madness Of Magistrate Shaw-Unhinged"

Nope!!!   not this time Capt'n....


Here is the link to the previous Bridget Shaw maleficence



On the 20th December 2012, I successfully appealed against the default sentence of 42 days imprisonment for non-payment of £490.00 fines for “parking infractions” imposed by Assistant Magistrate Shaw on 5th November 2012. That’s 7 x £70 individual fines with a default of 6 days imprisonment for each to run consecutively.




The appeal was pretty straight forward my argument being that the default sentence was manifestly excessive.
The Bailiff and Jurats first had to decide whether to allow my appeal.

An argument was made that I had abandoned any further right of appeal upon losing my 29th November 2012 appeal against conviction and sentence for contempt of court (imposed at the same 5th November hearing),so, the question was would I be allowed to abandon the abandonment!


I argued that at appeal on the 29th November I had concentrated on the contempt of court issue and that I had not been given the time I had asked for to be able to review any other issues surrounding the 5th November case.

This was accepted by the Bailiff and Jurats who allowed me to make my case re: the default sentence, the Bailiff did, however state that had I had legal representation he would not have allowed the appeal on 20th December.

Whilst sitting in prison on the afternoon of 19th December I was handed the respondent’s (Adv. Gollop for the AG) bundle, I am now used to receiving these disclosures at the 11th hour, not that I think it’s fair or right, but that’s another fight. Buried behind tab 10 of that bundle I found this;




Please bear in mind that these guidelines are decided by and drawn up by the Magistrates, therefore Bridget Shaw knows exactly what they recommend.

It was immediately apparent that the default sentence of 42 days imprisonment for fines of £490 fell outside the suggested maximum and the only argument the respondent could possibly make was that there were 7 individual fines of £70 each, so this would fall within the structure of the guidelines.

I headed Adv. Gollop off at the pass in my opening submission by saying that the fines should be treated in the aggregate because I had waived my right to individual trials for each ticket, thus saving the court time and money by allowing all the tickets to be dealt with at one hearing. I further argued that treating each ‘infraction’ individually but having an aggregate fine would cause an anomaly insofar as a situation could easily arise whereby someone could be fined £490 for a more serious offence such as thief or assault, default that fine and serve half the sentence I had received for non-payment of parking fines.

This left the Court with the impossible to answer question “how many parking fines equal theft or assault?”


I also asked the respondent where one could find the published guidelines for the default sentences on non-payment of fines or whether someone fined by the Magistrate’s Court received this document, Adv. Gollop admitted he had never seen this document before nor did he think it was available to those fined in the Magistrate’ Court.

I put it to the Bailiff that given this document is not publicly available and not handed out in court, it was impossible for someone who had been fined in the Magistrates Court to know whether to appeal the default sentence. The Bailiff agreed with my observation and instructed the AG to rectify the situation.

In his judgement the Bailiff agreed that the default sentence was manifestly excessive, he reduced the 6 days to 3 days for each infraction giving a total of 21 days, the standard one third remission was deducted and as I had served 17 days in prison for the default, I was free to go.


Having now had time to fully review all of the paperwork surrounding the 5th November ‘trial’ and subsequent events, some serious matters have come to light. Assistant Magistrate Shaw did impose an excessive default sentence which when taken with other actions by her, I believe show to beyond a reasonable doubt that she has purposely shown bias and prejudice against me (and others).
I feel this is probably due to my making Bridget look like a complete twat with the questions I’ve asked, and her barmy replies on the few occasions she has tried to answer them.
I take no credit for making Bridget look twattish, various people, lawyers, police and prison staff can confirm that she has no difficulty achieving that status without any help at all. 


Another matter arising from all this are the actions of the Viscount Dept. which I will be writing to the Bailiff about. Watch this space!

Once again I would like to thank everyone who has supported me materially and spiritually, it has confirmed my belief in the inherent good of people, you are all stars.



To finish this short posting I’ll leave you with;

 Article 90 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) law 1956

90    Application of fines[296]
(1)    A fine imposed for an offence under Articles 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 51 and 53 shall be awarded for the benefit of Her Majesty.



Cyril

And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks.






20 comments:

  1. Well done good luck for the future

    ReplyDelete
  2. The franchise must pay just like Burger King, sad it is. Looks like someone f*cked up and it wasn't Squirrel, more holes than a swiss cheese : )
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  3. ''the Bailiff did, however state that had I had legal representation he would not have allowed the appeal on 20th December''

    Could you give an explanation of why you believe the Bailiff stated the above?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can!

    They are supposed to give you some range of latitude when acting as a litigant in person, yet the Bailiff appears to be saying that if you did have a lawyer, they would have screwed it up!!!

    Even Cyril, with his rather extensive knowledge, cannot possibly have the insight into law that lawyers possess, so must be treated with some fair measure of justice.

    There again, King Birt knew that the Viscounts at best, fcuked up, and at worst, acted criminally. No doubt it was a huge factor in the Bay-leafs decision!!!

    we will be addressing that point in the very near future :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. A sort of backhanded compliment possibly infering Cyril is smarter than he looks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Indeed, Cyril doesn't look very smart, but is very astute, as am I when it comes to criminal matters.

    We both have a high degree of intellect when it comes to these matters and Michael Birt knows damn well that we would have sussed everything out in the long run.

    As for a 'backhanded compliment' I think that the Bay-leaf would have been a damn sight more concerned about the incompetence, or criminality, of the Viscounts agent Lester Hammon, in this case.

    As I said before, at best it was an utter cock up on the part of Hammon, which by any standards would render his position absolutely untenable in this instance.

    If we are kind enough to credit him with just a mistake, it was a mistake of monumental proportion....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ian I believe the viscounts representative who was silent at Cyrils appeal was as a deliberate fall guy and convenient villain for the pantomime performed at Cyrils appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Funny that, so do I....He was sat there the whole time through Cyril's appeal, yet he sat there in silence. Then after the farcical verdict, he then goes into Cyril's cell and wallops him with another 42 days!!!

    Why did he not address matters when sat in court all morning, and half the afternoon? Nope, he knew what he was doing, knew full well.

    Nasty spiteful little twerp, an Oligarchy drone if ever there was one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps he will be moved from the Viscounts department into housing! Just like that big fat old corrupt ex cop bastard DC David Harrison :)

      Delete
  9. Sounds like the whole shooting match in jersey is totally corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds like? hahaha, very droll.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perhaps some of the sheeple should listen HERE and HERE???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But perhaps....No more fitting tribute to the vast majority of Jersey's inhabitants than the title of THIS TUNE.

      When water and food is King, and very soon at that, what will you all do with your hoards of Gold?

      How shall they sustain you and your 'alleged' loved ones???

      Wake up Sheeple, whilst there is still the small window of opportunity open for you!!!

      Delete
  12. ''Please bear in mind that these guidelines are decided by and drawn up by the Magistrates, therefore Bridget Shaw knows exactly what they recommend''

    The email from David Le Heuze on 16 October 2012 states the fines default guidelines were only in force from that date and also the request to keep a copy for reference, suggests to me a rather haphazard effort and last minute effort in production?

    It would be interesting to compare and contrast if earlier guidelines ever existed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. These guidelines came into force just under three weeks prior to Cyrils fines on 5th November.

    How convenient a little leeway for error was given.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your getting close anon :)

    Your simply missing that one final factor to put the puzzle together :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guess I have to go back and try and find the missing piece. :)
    I am sure it is to do with the summons?

    ReplyDelete
  16. ''Serious matters have come to light''

    Ha ha a tad understated.

    Cyril's been sent to prison and labelled a criminal in a common law jurisdiction.

    Convicted and sentenced for contempt of court with no evidence supporting the contempt. Fined for parking statutes disputed honestly and lawfully. Never ordered to attend (Magistrate views = contempt-she would say that!)

    Cyrils asserted rights ignored Defendent "Im not Mr Vibert''
    Magistrate " Okay nothing to say"? How did Magistrate arrive at the nothing to say statement when clearly the defendant spoke.



    ReplyDelete