UDGE SHAW: Mr. Syvret you have asked me to stand down in this case and not to sit, because you say that firstly the Magistrate, personally the Magistrate would have an interest in the case. This is, as I say the first part of this is the subjective test, and you are saying that then there’s the wider question that you are saying that I personally should not sit, because as being part of the Jersey Judiciary and I take it from your argument that that would apply to any other Magistrate who sat. Firstly as I say the matter regarding myself personally, you say that I would be partial in your case and that I would have some interest in the outcome. You say that is because the Bailiff made a speech at my own swearing in, which made political points. You say that I have a political interest in this matter. The other point that you make is that I and other members of the Judiciary are appointed by the Bailiff, I take it that’s part of your argument, although you didn’t expressly say so. There must be a presumption and that comes from the European cases, the U.K. cases and the Jersey cases, that in any case a court will act impartially, and that will not be displaced without strong evidence. Firstly you bring up the Bailiff’s speech, that was a speech made by the Bailiff, it was not made by me. I had no prior knowledge of that and I can assure you I have no political interest in your case. I do not believe it can be legitimately said that the Magistrate, either myself or anyone else has any interest in court proceedings other than the due administration of justice or that I have any interest in dealing with anyone who appears before this court in anything but a fair and just manner, and that includes that I would not have any interest in unfairly punishing someone or criticising someone who has criticised the Bailiff. Magistrates take an Oath of Office as you are well aware, that oath ensures that the Magistrate swears in public that they will uphold the Law, that they will act impartially without fear or favour, hatred or partiality towards anyone who comes in front of them. In addition to the Oath of Office there is a Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct that you refer to in the Bailiff’s speech deals with similar points. Members of the Judiciary shall uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary and perform their duties with competence, diligence and dedication. It further goes on to say that they are to ensure that justice is done by giving each party a fair hearing according to law. Members of the Judiciary shall carry out their duties according to the dictates of their conscience objectively and without fear, favour or partiality, and in keeping with the laws and customs of the Island, they shall decide cases objectively and solely on their legal and actual merits. That is the Code of Conduct that governs myself, govern any other member of the Judiciary and in addition to that there is the Oath of Office. And as I said before, I can assure you I have no political interest in this matter and therefore I do not think there are grounds to excuse myself as (indistinct) sitting in this case. You raise the wider question of whether the objective observer would fear that there would not be a fair hearing. As I said before, the… take the leading Jersey case to be Hirschfield, that’s been followed in further Jersey cases and read it in the light of the Human Rights Law cases that you provided, and particularly the recent Court of Appeal, not the more recent Court of Appeal matter of the Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods, that was the English Court of Appeal which modified the earlier decision in the Queen v Gough. The onus of establishing partiality is that applying the objective test, the question is whether a legitimate doubt as the impartiality of the tribunal can be objectively justified, the Court will enquire whether the tribunal offer guarantees sufficient to exclude such a doubt or whether in making an assessment of the tribunal’s partiality even though appearances may be important. Now where there is a legitimate doubt as to the Judge’s impartiality of course they must withdraw. The points you raise are concerning firstly the Magistrate’s Court itself and you say that you’ve been critical of the Magistrate’s Court. Secondly you say that you have been critical of the wider Jersey Judiciary and therefore no-one could legitimately believe that you would receive a fair hearing in such a court. I say is that there should be strong grounds for bringing such an application and you have to look at that application in the light of the safeguards provided by the judicial system in Jersey. This is an open court, the media are almost always present, there is a responsibility on the Prosecution to disclose anything that would assist the Defence case or undermine the Prosecution case on a sensible reading of such material. That duty is continuing, it continues throughout the case until the end. There is an abuse of process power vested in the Court so that if the Court believes that other parties have not acted fairly, then the Court may stop the proceedings and order a stay of proceedings. In addition there is an appeal process and the Court as a public body will always act to ensure that it performs its duties in accordance with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law. Those are the safeguards that you have for a fair trial. We’re dealing here with two statutory offences, they each carry a maximum penalty which is fixed by law, in each case its currently £500.00. In respect of the matter dealing with registration of the vehicle, the Court has specific sentencing guidelines which are available. There are also previous cases reported in the media which would indicate to you the level of penalty that is likely to be imposed. It is not the case where the Magistrate is looking at intent or dishonesty, these are what we call offences of strict liability, they’re questions of fact, they’re not a question of judgement for a Magistrate to make as to whether someone knew that they didn’t have a driving licence or whether they were dishonest about it for example, its simply a matter of fact. Taking all these circumstances into account, I come to the conclusion that the case as put forward before me does not reach the required test. You ask that other documentation is made available to you and you say that that would add to your application. From what you have outlined to me, it appears to me that this would follow on the same grounds as the application you’ve made before wouldn’t substantially shift the grounds of your application, it’s still the same nature of the complaint that you make, namely that because of your political activities, the Court would not deal with you in a reasonable and fair manner. I do not think that that disclosure would take us any further, but should you come into possession of information which you wish to put before the Court, either to renew this application or to say that you should not be prosecuted for an abuse of process, then you will be able to do that should you have possession of that information. That is all I have to say about the matter, I do not consider that I should stand down in this case and Mr. Syvret, at this point you have a choice whether you wish to appeal my decision to the Royal Court or whether you wish to proceed with this case and enter your pleas
