Serving politicians and non serving politicans, worth reading. > Senators

Senator stuart syvret v AG

(1/16) > >>

rico sorda:
I want to start having a look at the senators court case not the names of the major playor behind the data protection issue but the court case..

It all started on Thursday the 18th of june 2009..

OK the first bit i want to look at was his first pleading...

His first pleading was an ; recuse ; application.

right the first thing is the role of Magistraite Bridget Shaw..

Taken from Stuarts blog

Suffice it to say that my first pleading to the court today was a recusal application. This is when a party to a court action argues that the judge, or some other component of the judicial apparatus involved in the case, is either actually biased – or runs the risk of appearing to be biased. In that case – the applicant asks that they ‘recuse’ themselves and step down..


Should Bridget Shaw have stepped down was she conflicted..

It just so happened that one of the items of evidence I had in support of my recusal application was one of Phil Bailhache’s many Political speeches.

Can we guess which one?

It was a Political speech he gave on the 30th June 2008 – in court – at the swearing-in of a new magistrate.

This is an extract of what he said on that occasion – and which I quoted in court today:

“You take up your post at a time when the judiciary and those in public office in the Island are, for better or for worse, under greater scrutiny than has been the case for some time. No-one can object, of course, to holding individual members of the judiciary to account for their judicial conduct or indeed for their conduct outside the court room. Indeed you have become, by virtue of your office, a member of the Jersey Judicial Association which last year adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct setting out quite clearly what is expected of judges and magistrates in this Island. But wholesale attacks upon the judiciary and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse inquiry are ignorant and unwelcome, and I deplore them. Senior politicians, should know better than to attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda.”

Now – can we guess just who is the “deplorable senior politician” – who has had the temerity to make, supposedly, “ignorant and unwelcome” criticisms of Jersey’s judiciary?

That’s right – me.

That is from stuarts blog..

So lets debate it is stuart right and should philip be making a speech like that and then she gets the syvret case.. proper answers please

rs

The Backbencher:
I surmise from the Gradwell interviews that the victims of historic child abuse had had their hopes raised to such a level by former police officer Lenny Harper that it was impossible for the police to actually deliver the convictions they were expecting, syvret did not help matters either as at the time he used the situation for his own political gain yet at the same time he also raised the victims hopes up to a false level again for the police to deliver.  I also believe that if they took the chance and went for charging everybody named that were still alive that if the cases failed it would not have been possible to charge people again and would of cost a fortune.  Gradwell declared that 50 police officers were involved in this, many of which were outsiders so the cover up assertions by some people are unsubstantiated and he brushed off accusations of being bribed by the establshment as preposterous.  So where do we go from here?  Forget Syvret he is up against so many intelligent people he cannot change anything so I dont know where to take this debate?   

rico sorda:
Bacbencher you are not going to ruin this site or this thread now could you please remove this last post and put it under harper.. if you cant can a mod do it please...

If you have nothing to say about the subject then please just do one...

right back on track....

Bridget Shaw.

At the conclusion of my recusal application, she adjourned for around 15 minutes to consider the pleading – and insisted on taking my human rights law-book with her.

Don’t the courts and the judges have these things readily available as a matter of course?

So how did she come to the conclusion was it all in stuarts  human rights law book..

The reason i have started this is because Senator Syvret said he cant get a fair trial well is he right or wrong ..

Starting with Bridgit Shaw

rs

The Backbencher:
I think this is relative but I have no objections to it being moved in relation to Syvret's behaviour in court and elsewhere I cannot really debate this because I think it is just so alien for a politicion I am ashamed I ever voted for him though I did only vote for him in the hope of Walker not getting in more than anything else back in 2005.

Chevalier Blanc:
Well he does have a real point but would BS find him guilty just because of what he has to say about the judiciary.
I would have thought that they would have fore seen this happening and therefore should have got an outside judge in but then i think you would still get the same reaction if he was found guilty. It is one of those cases that they cannot win even if they are right. Hence he would go all the way to the Human Rights Courts and that is something they do not want to happen!
Changing the subject slightly look at Henry Guilty of handball but they will not do anything about it even though the evidence is all to see. SS says the judiciary is guilty with the evidence he has but no they say they are not guilty.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page