“I’ll go to jail”

[cpcarrot]

Story on page 5 of the JEP today (not yet up on thisisjersey otherwise I would supply a link). Basically Senator Syvret has said that he will choose to go to jail rather than pay the legal costs he has been ordered to pay by the Royal Court.

Now trying to put aside what you think about the man, as I’m sure we’re likely to get a number of the regulars on here arguing how he’s either the second coming or the devil incarnate, is this an appropriate decision for an elected official?

By this I mean – Assuming he can afford to pay, and I’ve got no reason to suppose he can’t (he’s on a reasonable States Member Salary, the court costs can’t be that high and they allow payments of this sort to be spread out over time based on the ability to pay) – is making this choice the right thing to do given his role?

Putting my own views on his policies and opinions to one side, from my perspective he is a States Senator who was elected by the island to sit in the States. If he carts himself off to jail he will no longer be doing his job, no longer voting on legislation, no longer asking questions, no longer participating in the debate. Essentially everyone who voted for him would be being short changed, as the Senator they elected to voice their views in the States is basically choosing not to continue to do so.

I’ve got a bad feeling this is going to degrade into a discussion on Senator Syvret as a person, but I’m interested to hear other peoples views on if it is the right thing for any elected official to do?

[Shiva]

I think that the question should be "is this the sort of thing a rational person would do?" regardless of his position.
Reading through his blog postings, Syvret is actually working towards being imprisoned. He regards it as some sort of badge of honour comparing his situation to that of Nelson Mandela. In working towards his goal, he is completely overlooking the fact that most prisoners of conscience do not elect to go to prison, they have no choice in the matter.

In his currently confused state of mind, he appears to believe that he will actually achieve some sort of status by being imprisoned and that this will then provide him with a platform from which to launch further attacks on the "oligarchy". It is in nobody's best interest (including Syvret's) that he goes to prison for offences that do not carry a custodial sentence in Law. Probably the best and the fairest thing the Court could do would be to remand him for a background report which could include a psychiatric evaluation. This option is open to any Court as an alternative to a custodial sentence and would demonstrate that the Court had taken Syvret's mental health and wellbeing into consideration prior to passing sentence.

As usual, Syvret is looking at things in black and white absolutes rather than considering all of the shades of grey that attach themselves to the legal process.

[Dylan]

I think if he goes to Jail, that he should automatically lose his position in the States. No "Get out of Jail card", no sympathy. He is not representing anyone by putting himself into birdie, so for that reason I'm Out!

[ole razzy]

I've said from the start I think he should have just said sorry at the Parish Hall inquiry, had his wrist slapped and been done with it. The road to Stasbourg seemed like a mountain that just was not worth climbing to me. So many other things to focus on.

Anyway before we all start saying how he should be kicked out of the States for not being able to serve the electorate in the chamber should'nt we know how long the sentence is and how it might impact on his workload? Its not going to be a huge fine, maybe a few grand so hypothetically, if he chose not to pay, Syvret could get say a month inside, serve two weeks for good behaviour over the christmas recess and be back in January not having missed a single debate.

And he'd still contribute more to the political scene then all the constables put together - the crow included.

[Durendal]

I've said from the start I think he should have just said sorry at the Parish Hall inquiry, had his wrist slapped and been done with it. The road to Stasbourg seemed like a mountain that just was not worth climbing to me. So many other things to focus on.

Anyway before we all start saying how he should be kicked out of the States for not being able to serve the electorate in the chamber should'nt we know how long the sentence is and how it might impact on his workload? Its not going to be a huge fine, maybe a few grand so hypothetically, if he chose not to pay, Syvret could get say a month inside, serve two weeks for good behaviour over the christmas recess and be back in January not having missed a single debate.

And he'd still contribute more to the political scene then all the constables put together - the crow included.

Given his normal record his actual attendance ratio will no doubt improve!

[ole razzy]

Given his normal record his actual attendance ratio will no doubt improve!

Your right. I just didn't want to be the one to mention it! 

[danrok]

Some people go to jail and just shrug it off, remain completely unaffected by it, and enjoyed spending some time with their mates up there.

I don't think Stuart falls in to that category, and if jailed for any long period of time, should consider that he will be affected, degraded and humiliated by the experience.  This can be a very high price to pay.

[Dylan]

I think he may want to go to Jail just to widen the circle of his friends.

[ole razzy]

Widen his circle? Ooooooch! I hear the Daddy of the B Block is the big swinging dick right now.

[Ruddler]

Other options include community service -perhaps he can then be doing something useful for a change and as I understand it it won't cut into States sittings as they do it at weekends (my cousin reliably reports).

An arrest on wages is also a possibility if it's a case of "won't pay", rather than "can't pay".  I see today that the average wage here is now £620 pw.  States Members are on at least £840 pw plus their tax free "expenses" of more than £3400 pa - there is no requirement on them to account for them and some or all of them may well trouser some or all of it for all anyone knows.  I can vouch for Arrest on Wages, helped me settle my little local difference with the tax man a few years back.........................

I do however agree with cpcarrot, I didn't vote for him in 2005 to be effectively disenfranchised with a couple of years of his term to run.  However, I really cannot believe prison is an option and the magistrate must have other remedies available?  It's not as if society needs protecting from the bloke is it?

[imacrappaud]

Well I am getting my vocal chords ready for "Freeeee ee Senator Syvret"

[Fritz]

Bang him up for a few months.

Let him keep his trouser belt and shoe-laces, (Which, if confiscated, he will no doubt claim infringes his human rights etc), and let him confirm his martyrdom.

[Deputy Dawg]

St Stuart still has (if he wants it) over 2 years left in the states with a reasonable salary so an arrest on wages which he has no option not to pay, spread over that time is not going to be too difficult.

The note in the paper said something about a politician being removed only if a prison sentence was for more than 3 months, I can't see the driving infractions being imprisonable, the data protection? well that's a new case in Jersey and has to my knowledge never been enacted in full on an individual but from a quick review of the law has a maximum penalty of 5 years and/or a fine (Citation needed) but again could be an arrest on wages. Lastly we get the costs of the Bailiff and crew which St Stuart has said could come to around £20,000.

But wait, there's more.

The JEP Article stated "Under Island Law, a States Member must stand down if sentenced to a prison term of more than three months and where there was no option of paying a fine".

Now, with the infractions above with the exception of the Data Protection, which we still have to hear about, St Stuart DOES have the option of paying a fine. This would mean that if the Data Protection infraction itself carried a penalty of less than 3 months, then no matter how long St Stuart was incarcerated he would not be required to stand down as there WAS an option of paying a fine and by default, and unless there has been a change in the law or a caveat, will not count towards dismissal from the states.

I think they will have no option other than to arrest wages and see if he jumps ship.
 

[the future]

I am a Jersey born and bred living in Tel Aviv (check my ip address) politics here is tough, people are killed here for their political beliefs regularly.

The people on planet Jersey wishing Senator Syvret harm are the dangerous radicals we have in Jersey, they deserve no respect, they are wishing violence upon people with different beliefs from their own. I can see people here hoping he will be abused in a jail cell for example.
 
It is the approval of such actions that causes them to happen, in Tel Aviv publicly wishing such things is incitement, you are telling others it is ok to do these things and that the perpetrators of these deeds will be rewarded with praise and as such it is illegal.

I would go to prison for my strongly held political and religious beliefs which are different from Stuart Syvrets, I also respect his strong beliefs and I am behind his legal action, that is an investigation into our legal system in Jersey and have deep respect for the fact he is prepared to got to prison for his beliefs.

Without Senator Stuart Syvret this blog would not exist he has paved the way for a new kind of democracy in Jersey and he does not need to be right to be doing the Island a service.

I wish him a long a violence free life and hope to have some differences with him in the future (as I should have) and we can both have these healthy arguments without suggestions of violent behaviour, self harm or general misfortune to come his or my way.

Oh by the way we are watching this in Tel Aviv and it has become a bit of a Joke here how this can happen to a Politician and how the government would allow and/or make this episode happen in the first place.

From here it just looks like an abuse of power. Possibly legally right but still an abuse of power. Condoned and perpetrated by a powerful group of people he has upset. Not a healthy government !                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

[Ashley]

I support . . . actually, I need to rephrase that - I believe in many of the things that Stuart stands for.

In this instance though I think he's making a fool of himself.  Yes, it's possible that he's been caught out a bit, and yes, a few people are probably loving it.  So effing what man? Move on, pay the fine, STFU and concentrate on the big issues here.  If it's a pride thing, which it must be, let it go.  No one wants to hear about this crap - least of all his supporters.