Thursday, 28 March 2013
"Updates On Updates On Complaints"
"Jersey Complaints Procedure Is
A Laughing Stock"
"Complaint Against Mike Bowron"
Chief Officer Mike Bowron
As readers will remember, I lodged a complaint against the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Mike Bowron, this was as a consequence of the officers under his command refusing my lawful request to furnish me with information regarding my arrest, and the illegal ransacking of my home. This was the case where I had to complain to Mr Bowron, about Mr Bowron! This point will become much more relevant later on in the posting.
This story can be read at the link directly below.
Chief Inspector Alison Fossey
After rebutting the statement the Jersey police had written for me, and then making my own statement to the police, I was told that Chief Inspector Alison Fossey would be the person looking into my complaint. Ms Fossey has not contacted me during her investigations, but rang me two weeks ago to inform me that her investigation was complete, and that a file had been submitted. Presumably, DCO Barry Taylor or Ian Le Marquand will be getting back to me in the future in this regard. The same two individuals I have ongoing complaints against for perverting the course of justice, dereliction of....Aaah, never mind, read for yourselves.
For grave and criminal assault, perverting the course of justice, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, knowingly making a false statement, and perjury.
Police Officer - A Du Feu
Police Officer – S A Le Bas
Police Officer – R McIntosh
Police Officer – L Lang
For perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and dereliction of duty.
Police Officer - D Warcup
Police Officer - B Taylor
Judge/Home Affairs Minister - I Le Marquand – two counts of each charge
Judge/Deputy Bailiff - W Bailhache
Commissioner F Hamon
"Complaint Against Bridget Shaw"
Bridget "I don't know what you mean" Shaw
As anticipated, I have had no further contact from anyone with regards to this complaint. Shaw is one of the Jersey Oligarchy's prized stooges who does their bidding without question, it will take some doing to get this crook imprisoned, or even reprimanded.
"Complaint Against Four Bullying Lying Cops"
Again, not a peep from the Jersey authorities on this one. However, I did recently write to DCO Barry Taylor again requesting a copy of the independent investigation report into this case which he initially refused to give me. My recent letter is below.
Deputy Chief Officer Barry Taylor
D.C.O Barry Taylor
Rouge Bouillon, St Helier
I find myself, yet again, writing to request a copy of the report compiled by Mr William Little and his colleague into the case of 21/06/2006 where I was grave and criminally assaulted by four of your officers, and which officers then went on to commit perjury at my subsequent trial. I have no legal representation now as my Advocate has all but abandoned my cases, so again I am requesting a copy of this report.
If you believe that there is any lawful justification why I cannot be given a copy of this report, could you please state that reason for the record. I find it utterly incomprehensible that I cannot have access to material related to my own complaint, and which lack of disclosure of such material is preventing me from progressing in a civil case against these officers.
I look forward to a positive response from yourself at your earliest convenience.
All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved.
Will I receive a response? And if so, when?
"Complaints Against Advocates Tim
Hanson & Barbara Corbett"
Advocate Tim Hanson
My complaint against Tim Hanson was that he, like his predecessor Advocate Thacker, had not given me the evidence report of the alleged I.T.Expert who is supposed to have inspected Advocate Bales computer to determine whether or not a particular letter had ever been created on that computer, and on a particular date.
Advocate Barbara Corbett
My complaint against Advocate Corbett after she had been appointed on legal aid to look into the merits of a civil case against the establishment, had failed to act on virtually all of my instructions to her, this being tantamount to gross negligence.
On the 27th January 2013, I set about writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Jersey Law Society, Jane Martin, and not for the first time. Ms Martin has, in the past, been very helpful and seemed really conscientious in her duty as C.E.O. of the Law Society.
Sadly, it has now been eight weeks since I wrote and I have still not received a reply. The story of Advocates Hanson & Corbett can be read at the link directly below.
Oddly enough, after posting this article on the 19th March 2013 on this blog, I received the very next day, a response from the new Chief Executive Officer of the Jersey Law Society. Yup, it looks like Jane Martin is another one who has left her position! This sure is becoming a rather frequent occurrence....
The new C.E.O of the Law Society is Mr Neville Benbow who sent me the following Email in relation to my complaints.
C.E.O Neville Benbow
Dear Mr Evans
I refer to your email of 27 January 2013, addressed to Jane Martin, who I have just succeeded as Chief Executive Officer of the Law Society of Jersey. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you as a result of this change.
I note your wish to lodge a complaint of gross negligence against Advocate Hanson, on the basis of his refusal to refer, to a disciplinary committee, your complaint against Advocate Thacker which, in turn, related to the refusal by Advocate Thacker to refer your original complaint against Advocate Bale to a disciplinary committee.
The Law Society of Jersey (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2010 detail the basis upon which complaints against members of the Law Society of Jersey can proceed; the role of President of the Law Society carries with it a responsibility to adjudicate on whether a complaint is referred to a disciplinary committee. It is a decision, taken in good faith, that is based on the assessment of the complaint, as submitted, together with any supporting evidence provided by the complainant, and a determination as to whether a member of the Law Society has breached the Code of Conduct, the underlying rules which govern how lawyers should practice and conduct themselves and, as such, may be guilty of professional misconduct.
The adjudication of a complaint, by the President, is part of his statutory duty under the provision of the associated Law and Rules. It is difficult to see how such an adjudication could be construed as professional misconduct or a breach of the Code of Conduct. However, as you will be aware, where the decision is made not to refer a complaint, on the basis that there is no evidence that the Code of Conduct has been breached or the complaint is considered to be vexatious, frivolous or trivial, the President is required to inform the Attorney General of his decision. In the event that a complainant feels that the decision by the President is wrong or flawed, he may appeal in writing to the Attorney General. The Attorney General will then determine whether a complaint should be re-examined. Where further action is deemed appropriate and necessary, the matter may either be referred back to the Law Society to review or take to a disciplinary committee or the Attorney General may decide to take action himself. The decision, therefore, rests with the Attorney General. The only other course of action that you may wish to consider is to apply for a Judicial Review of the President's decision, although you may incur legal costs in pursuing such an action.
Accordingly, if you wish to pursue your complaint against Advocate Hanson, this can only be undertaken through reference to the Attorney General to appeal the adjudication, or by seeking a Judicial Review.
Turning to your complaint against Advocate Corbett, having made enquiries in this regard, there is no record of you having made a complaint to Advocate Corbett's firm, Hanson Renouf, to give them the opportunity to address your concerns. The Law Society is unable to review any complaints until such time as a complainant has raised a complaint with the firm itself and gone through their complaints process. May I suggest that, in the first instance, you arrange to meet with Advocate Corbett as the first step in Hanson Renouf'scomplaints process. If, at the conclusion of this process, you still wish to make a complaint, you may of course do so. Any such complaint does need to be submitted on a formal complaint form, signed and returned to the Law Society. In this regard, I am enclosing the complaints form, notes to complainants and guidance notes on complaints against members of the Law Society of Jersey.
In relation to your points in respect of Legal Aid, you will be aware that, unlike other jurisdictions, lawyers in Jersey provide the island's Legal Aid system through the provision of free or subsidised legal services to those who are eligible. While I understand and appreciate your desire to be represented by a lawyer who practices in a relevant field, the Legal Aid system is not set up in this manner with Legal Aid responsibilities distributed on a rota system to lawyers who have been qualified for less than 15 years. Without a major overhaul in the manner in which the system operates, which would need to include a review of how Legal Aid is funded, it is unlikely that the position will change in the short term.
Finally, in relation to your enquiry on the Jersey Police Complaints Authority, the Law Society does not maintain details of membership or contact details for the Authority. However, details of the JPCA and how to complain can be found on the States of Jersey website (www.gov.je) under Government and administration > Comments, compliments and complaints or the Citizens Advice Bureau website (www.cab.org.je) under General.
I have responded to Mr Benbow with the Email that is below. In it, I point out the contentious issues that need addressing and correct some of the points in the above Email.
Dear Mr Benbow
Thank you for your Email of the 20th March 2013 wherein you state "I note your wish to lodge a complaint of gross negligence against Advocate Hanson, on the basis of his refusal to refer, to a disciplinary committee, your complaint against Advocate Thacker which, in turn, related to the refusal by Advocate Thacker to refer your original complaint against Advocate Bale to a disciplinary committee. ". I am unsure as to how you came to deduce this from my letter of complaint?
My letter to Jane Martin clearly states that "I have received a ruling from Adv Tim Hanson, President of the Jersey Law Society (see attachments) with regard to my complaint against Adv Thacker which is wholly unsatisfactory, and in my opinion, inconclusive. He has declined, as Adv Thacker did with my complaint against Adv Bale, to provide me with the 'alleged' evidence that he cleared Adv Thacker of any wrongdoing with, namely, the independent I.T Experts report on the data 'allegedly' collected from Adv Bales computer." It is quite apparent from this paragraph that my complaint was based solely on the fact that the 'alleged' evidence of the I.T Expert, which was used to clear Advocate Bale and Advocate Thacker of any wrongdoing, has still not been handed to me for inspection, challenge, or rebuttal?
It is all fine and well to say that this 'alleged' experts evidence is conclusive in the matter, it is however, rather less compelling when the complainant is not given the evidence to prove that this is, in fact, the case. I would have thought that evidence that is contrary to my claim should be produced, should it not?
Turning now to my complaint against Advocate Corbett, you state that "Turning to your complaint against Advocate Corbett, having made enquiries in this regard, there is no record of you having made a complaint to Advocate Corbett's firm, Hanson Renouf, to give them the opportunity to address your concerns. The Law Society is unable to review any complaints until such time as a complainant has raised a complaint with the firm itself and gone through their complaints process. May I suggest that, in the first instance, you arrange to meet with Advocate Corbett as the first step in Hanson Renouf's complaints process". It is fair to say in this instance that, no, I have not officially lodged a formal complaint with the law firm Hanson/Renouf. You then go on to advise that I might seek a meeting with Advocate Corbett to address my concerns. Well, the last time I spoke with Advocate Corbett was an hour long meeting at her offices, to discuss these very issues and concerns. The result of this meeting, and the lack of progress pertaining to it, resulted in the complaint to Jane Martin.
Given that Tim Hanson is Barbara Corbett's partner in the law firm, would you not consider that there is an overriding concern with regard to impartiality and conflict of interest here?
I look forward to your thoughts on the issues that I have now raised.
As we can see from these two letter, and as in the case above with Mike Bowron, I am forced to complain to the very people I am complaining about!
How does that work again?
Is it any wonder that the common pleb cannot achieve any sort of justice in Jersey when everything in the system is deliberately geared for the system to win?
"The Jersey Way"