The four proxies named below in a Westminster early day motion, had every right to take Stuart Syvret to court using established libel law. Was his information correct or not. Syvret would have called witnesses, would have produced evidence and placed his information in the public domain for inspection. They would have then, if successful, cleared their names and lessened the popularity of Stuart Syvret. A secret trial based on strange interpretation of the Jerseys' data protection law, financed by the taxpayer took place instead.
An early day motion placed in the public domain and freely available from November 2013 Early day motion 685
That this House notes that Stuart Syvret who was previously elected as a senator in Jersey has been imprisoned for three months for making allegations on his blog about Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth, who had previously obtained a super-injunction against him under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; further notes that the use of this law would cover all allegations whether they are true or not; believes that this is a chilling affront to freedom of speech and that before someone could be imprisoned for making allegations it should be shown that the allegations made are not true; further notes that Jersey still does not have a system of private prosecution, nor does it have the facility to judicially review prosecutory decisions;
It would have been much to the credit of Jerseys home affairs Minister ( for justice ? ) Ian Le Marquand or Chief Minister Gorst, had they followed the UK latest legislation in adopting new laws, which work against Jersey’s special use of the Data Protection law and protect freedom of speech.
Part of the article.
The changes - coming in on 1 January - will also address "libel tourism".
The government said the law would reverse the "chilling effect" current libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate.
Journalists, scientists and academics have faced unfair legal threats for fairly criticising a company, person or product in the past, the Ministry of Justice said.
It said the Act would provide "clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions", while campaigners said it was "good news for free speech" but urged Northern Ireland to follow suithttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
Looking at the new legal changes now in place in the UK does this not make Jersey’s laws look frankly outdated and redundant ?
Will the Council of Ministers be announcing a change to best practise in line with the UK.
If not why not ?