Author Topic: Senator stuart syvret v AG  (Read 16427 times)

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Senator stuart syvret v AG
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:39:04 PM »
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
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 07:53:03 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2009, 12:23:23 AM »
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?   

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2009, 12:52:18 AM »
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

« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 01:02:43 AM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2009, 01:09:12 AM »
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.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2009, 01:39:27 AM »
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.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2009, 04:37:01 PM »
So does the then bailiffs speech at the swearing in of Bridget shaw make her conflicted..

Did the bailiffs speech compromise her from the very start was there no one else who could have taken the case..

Did she rule herself not to be conflicted or was it done independently & why did she need to adjourn for 15mins with his human rights book

Senator Stuart Syvret is saying he cant get a fair trial ....unless we look at the facts how can we say yes/no so does this speech conflict BS and infringe on Human Rights

“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.”

Here are the charges


1: Failing to renew a driving licence after an automatic expiry date.

2: Failing to notify a change of the registration address for my car.

3: Allegedly disclosing controlled data on this blog.

4: The data in question not being formally registered as under my control.

Why did they say they were minor charges when stuart went into exile and if they were minor why was he facing Advocate Stephen Baker across the court room one of their best men ok curtis warren might have an issue with the last bit..

rs

« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 04:55:17 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2009, 05:53:47 PM »
Just so we know what recusal is about

recuse definition - legal
v
To remove as a judge from a trial or hearing, because of bias, prejudice, or an interest in the matter being decided; to object to or challenge the qualifications of a judge to hear a case due to a possible conflict of interest.

Was B.Shaw conflicted by the bailiffs speech

Also if someone can help in jersey law... If you are in court and you make a recusal application who rules on that decision..

We know it cant be the sitting magistrate right.. So who is it

If you read this but don't post feel free to email me at ricosorda@yahoo.co.uk

Also just incase some abuse comes my way your wasting your time i laugh it off cheers

rs

rs
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 06:49:18 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2009, 11:31:34 PM »
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
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline Durendal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 12:35:48 AM »
Rico

I thought Bridget Shaw's summing up was excellent. It was coherent extensive addressed all the issues and was done in English comprehensible to the public at large.

What the Blessed SSSâ„¢ was trying to do was that all present at the Bailiff's speech were in some way tainted by it. As arguments go it was tenuous at the least and realistically a downright abuse of process and a waste of court time.

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2009, 12:54:13 AM »
I would not even bother responding to this anymore it is completely mad.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2009, 07:36:06 AM »
Backbencher nice knowing you can you close the keypad on the way out...

Durendal it is a nice summing up but there are points i will discuss during the week so if you don't get bored feel free to chip in cheers

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2009, 07:56:14 AM »
I now get the impression that some syvret supporters have never been in court before and I think they imagine themselves as being in court when they watch syvret and they get excited by his behaviour curiously when he tries to use political muscle to be bullet proof and get out of it but fails.  
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 08:00:31 AM by The Backbencher »

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2009, 08:42:11 PM »
LIST OF COURT HEARINGS IN THE PROSECUTION CASE AGAINST STUART SYVRET

18th June 2009

16th July 2009

22nd July 2009

27th August 2009

14th September 2009

7th October 2009

12th October 2009

21st October 2009

23rd October 2009



18th June 2009

IN THE PROSECUTION AGAINST:

I have put B.shaw summing up on the recusal so i can use it as a reference when i put SSS evidence up

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline Durendal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 09:46:31 PM »
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









Rico
What the Blessed SSSâ„¢ had was a commentary on Human Rights Law.

He brought before the Magistrate a case in that book. Quite rightly she wanted to look at it I have seen this before in a court of law when a case is quoted and the Judge is unfamiliar with it. They ask to see what the person has and then often look at the decision of the case later.

This was nothing out of the ordinary and  this is another case of the Blessed One trying to show how clever he is (or rather not). He is not an Oscar Wilde who when questioned at Customs said “I have nothing to declare except my genius.”












Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2009, 10:02:42 PM »
Good stuff durendal this what i want lets look at this case...

So here we go lets start at day one June 18th

JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much, Mr. Syvret there are some charges to be put this morning.  I understand that there are some preliminary issues you wish to raise.  First of all I’d ask the Centenier to put the charge, so that we’ve begun the Court Hearing.
CENTENIER ANDREWS:  (Reads charges.)
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Syvret first of all do you understand the charges?
DEFENDANT:  Yes.
JUDGE SHAW:  And secondly do you have any Advocate acting for you today?
DEFENDANT:  I don’t no, I did make repeated attempts via the Bâtonnier and the acting Bâtonnier to obtain paid legal aid.  They declined to do so, which I have to for the record say I regard as a breach of my Human Rights.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well.  For today’s purposes there isn’t anyone acting?
DEFENDANT:  No.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well.  Mr. Syvret before I ask you to enter pleas to these charges, do you have a preliminary point you wish to raise?
 

The reason im looking at this bit is because lol i don't understand it so who can help and was it a breach of his human right

DEFENDANT:  I don’t no, I did make repeated attempts via the Bâtonnier and the acting Bâtonnier to obtain paid legal aid.  They declined to do so, which I have to for the record say I regard as a breach of my Human Rights

rs

one ban away from oblivion rsx