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

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2009, 11:15:08 AM »
It did come from a member of Sinel's staff so its a little more factual than half the material on Mr Syvret's blog so more than just a rumour, Jersey is full of moles and you do not have to be a back bencher to know that.  I also understand that Mr Syvret's latest post on data protection is so factually inaccurate that it now shows to everybody what he really does not know about the law.  Deputy Bob Hill is also very wrong on this (so I have been told by the real law makers in the know).  I think some statement will be forthcoming on this to squash some of the rubbish translations out there which have sadly even appeared on this forum by a few people that have put together some real long posts on the issue.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 11:18:24 AM by The Backbencher »

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2009, 02:04:47 PM »
Backbencher can you open a thread about p147 and explain all your facts please so we can leave this one stops them getting off track.... This is syvret v AG

Thank you

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2009, 02:21:13 PM »
This may as well be called Syvret Syvret Syvret.  This forum is being ruined by an over run of topic starters on Syvret and I hope when the servers are moved people can talk about proper Jersey politics for a change.  Seperate threads for the same clown is stupid.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2009, 07:18:19 PM »
Am I entitled to Legal Aid?

The Acting Batonnier will consider your application and will decide whether to issue a Legal Aid Certificate.

Legal Aid is normally only given to people who live in Jersey. You may be eligible if you live elsewhere and have been charged with a criminal offence, or need legal advice in relation to a child who does live here.

Legal Aid is not available for every type of dispute or problem. The Acting Batonnier will decide whether your case, in accordance with the Legal Aid Guidelines, is one for which Legal Aid is available.

In deciding whether to grant Legal Aid, The Acting Batonnier will decide whether your case is, at first sight, strong enough to merit Legal Aid being given.This is a "merits test". Special rules apply to Legal Aid which is given in certain typrs of cases for example personal injury claims.

The Acting Batonnier will also decide whether you are financially eligible for Legal Aid. This is done on the basis of the financial information in your application form and is based on your household income and capital. This includes the income and capital of your spouse or partner. Children who need Legal Aid are assessed on their parents' financial position and the parents will meet any fees charged.

Different guidelines will be used by the law firm that acts for you when deciding what you will be billed.

Can I choose my lawyer?

No. The lawyer appointed to help you will be the next lawyer on the rota which is administered by the Legal Aid Office.  Only in unusual circumstances will this not be the case.

If the lawyer originally appointed cannot act for you then a new lawyer may have to be appointed.

What wil I have to pay?

Your lawyer is entitled to charge you a reasonable fee in accordance with the Legal Aid guidlines. The guidelines include quite detailed rules about what you can be charged. These rules take in to account your household income and capital as well as any settlement obtained in your case.

The lawyer acting for you must provide you with a detailed engagement letter which should set out how you will be billed and provide an estimate of your legal fees. You must keep your lawyer up to date with any change in your finances, and, if the fee position changes, your lawyer should in turn keep you up to date.

You may be asked to make payments on account of fees provided that the amount you are asked to pay is fair. If you do not believe it is fair, you must raise this immediately with the law firm acting for you and then with the Legal Aid Office.

Complaints

If you have a complaint about your lawyer, discuss this first with the law firm that has been apponited. If this does not resolve it, raise your complaint with the Acting Bâtonnier.

If you wish to complain about a fee note issued to you, you have the right to seek adjudication on those fees from the Acting Bâtonnier. If you wish to do this, you must contact the Legal Aid Office as soon as possible or you may lose the right to complain.

Just a little back ground on legal aid in jersey

from sss

"The ECHR case-law is clear and unambiguous - the legal representation to which all people in Europe are entitled - has to be EFFECTIVE legal representation - not just "let's-go-through-the-motions-and-make-belive" legal representation we find in Jersey.

I therefore requested paid legal aid - of my choice - so that I would be EFFECTIVLY legally represented.

Notwithstanding some detailed correspondence - the relevant Jersey authorities refused.

A fact made all the more comically remarkable - given that they do - when the whim takes Bill Bailhache - occasionally use tax-payers money to fund certain legal representation.

For example - a multi-millionaire fraudster had his legal costs paid.

And - guess what - so did Roy Boschat.

And - when they were prosecuted first time around - so did the McGuires.

I guess the moral of the story is that if I'd wanted paid legal aid - I should have spent 12 years torturing children.

Stuart

We the taxpayer i believe are paying for the curtis warren & gang court case and he is worth mega millions

rs

« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 07:40:28 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline cpcarrot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2009, 11:50:48 PM »
In relation to your Senator Syvret quote he has effectively missed two important points concerning the ECHR view on Article 6.

1. You are only entitled to Legal Aid IF you can not afford it. - He would have to demonstrate that his States Salary is insufficient for him to afford suitable legal advice. That is a matter open to interpretation, but I would certainly hope that a States Member's salary (which is above the island average salary) would be sufficient.
2. The ECHR allows for the fact that if you can not afford such advise the State must appoint someone for you. You do not get a choice of who that is. It simply has to be someone suitable and qualified - something you could only realistically challenge after the trial, or at least whilst it is ongoing, demonstrating to the court how he/she proved to be unsuitable. Saying a qualified advocate is insufficient is rather difficult given by definition they are qualified to represent someone in court.

Essentially it is excepted that if everyone could get paid for legal aid, and at the same time pick their own lawyer (which is basically what the Senator is suggesting he should get) everyone who is ever charged with ANY offence would turn around and say I want the most expensive lawyer going, even if it was for a parking ticket. Legal aid bills would then be astronomical and completely cost prohibitive so there is no practical way of the State providing that.

If you can afford a lawyer you pay for one yourself - Fair enough. If you can not afford one you get an appointed fully qualified advocate provided by the State - again fair enough.

In respect of Warren - Yes he is allegedly worth millions - But you can't prove that. If you could various agencies would have taken it off him long before now. What funds have been identified are frozen by the authorities so as far as the courts can be concerned he had no way of paying for effective legal aid, hence it had to be provided. It should also be noted that he didn't get to pick his lawyer either.

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2678
  • Gender: Male
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2009, 01:17:28 AM »
Exactly.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2009, 12:58:07 PM »
DEFENDANT:  No.
UDGE 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?
DEFENDANT:  Several yes, I suppose the first point I must make is Recusal argument in that I don’t consider this Court is capable of dealing with any Jmatter concerning me because I’m a known public figure, also a known public figure in opposition to the current judicial and prosecutory apparatus of Jersey.  I have been at a very high level of a political battle against it.  All of that is well documented.  I can cite some actual documented examples of evidence as to why this Court cannot meet the really quite high test of the appearance of impartiality and objectivity, as is established both in British jurisprudence and very clearly any good deal of European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence.  If I would just like to refer to one item of actual evidence (inter)
JUDGE SHAW:  Ah well perhaps before we get on to that we ought to look at what the Jersey Law is on this point.  I understand you have had some correspondence with, was it Mr. Matthews at the Judicial Greffe?
DEFENDANT:  Yes Mr. Matthews and Mr. Houze.
JUDGE SHAW:  And pointed out to you the Case Law.  The test I would propose to apply is the test in Hirschfield which has been followed subsequently in Jersey cases.  The Jersey cases have explicitly followed the European Case Law.  The U.K. Case Law is slightly less favourable to the defendant than the European Case Law and it’s been made very clear in the case of Hirschfield and further in the case of Barra Hotel that the Jersey position would follow the European Case Law.  Do you understand what I’m saying that is?
DEFENDANT:  Yes.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very good.  The correct test firstly is to establish whether the particular Judge against whom you have an objection has a personal interest in the case, and that’s a matter for the Judge to decide.
DEFENDANT:  Hmm. Hmm.
JUDGE SHAW:  And the second one, which I think is the one you are relying on is the objective test, the members of the public, if they were looking at the situation how would they feel that it was possible to have a fair trial.
DEFENDANT:  Hmm. Hmm.
JUDGE SHAW:  And that part of the test the ruling in Hirschfield was that the reasonable suspicion test is the one for the determination of apparent bias, which I think, is the leg that you’re relying on.  And that’s been adopted in Jersey as being the easier for the applicant to meet, and also more appropriate having particular regard to Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.  The test was whether a reasonable objective and informed person aware of and having regard to all the correct facts considered there was a real suspicion or apprehension of bias, in that the Judge might unfairly favour or disfavour the case of one of the parties.  The burden was on the applicant to establish bias and no application for recusation should be accepted without strong grounds to support it, and Judges should not accede too readily to such applications.
DEFENDANT:  Okay.
JUDGE SHAW:  That’s what I intend to follow as being the test I have to apply in Jersey.  So do I take it that you’re not stating that I as a particular Judge have an interest in either your conviction, acquittal, or if you were convicted the level of penalty.
DEFENDANT:  Well it so happens in your particular case yes I would make that argument.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well.
JUDGE SHAW:  Would you like to make that argument then.
DEFENDANT:  Certainly, I would like to refer to a speech given by the Bailiff at the swearing in of Mrs. Bridget Shaw as Assistant Magistrate on Monday 30th June 2008.  I won’t cite the entire speech, it’s a matter of public record on the Bailiff’s web site, but I would quote one paragraph. ‘Mrs. Shaw 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 courtroom.  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 the Island.  By wholesale attacks upon the Judiciary, this is in reference to me, and suggestions that they are collectively incapable of dealing with any outcomes of the current child abuse enquiry are ignorant and unwelcome and I deplore them.  Senior politicians should know better than attempt to subvert public confidence in our judicial institutions in pursuit of a personal agenda’ and that’s the end of the quote.  Now using the uhm… objective test the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus could be expected to look at yourself, and indeed for that reason and other reasons this Magistrate’s Court in its entirety as presenting a risk, a danger of bias, because these kind of overt partisan political speeches have been made by the Bailiff, the Head of the Island’s Judiciary and indeed expressly made, during your particular actual swearing in.  So I would cite that both as a reason that could lead a reasonable person to have suspicions as to your objectivity and impartiality, because this kind of speech can be expected to have made a strong impression on the people who heard it, the people who it was directed at.  You then have to say well can they then be seen to be sufficiently objective and impartial.  So in your particular case I do think there are individual grounds for recusal.
JUDGE SHAW:  Why are you saying that I would have an interest then in… the question is in actually disposing of your case why would I have an interest in either showing partiality, in either acquitting your or convicting you or the level of sentence I was to impose.
DEFENDANT:  The point is the Bailiff who is Head of the Island’s Judiciary made this political speech at your swearing in, and in these kind of legal cases my understanding is that it’s quite well established that one of the tests is whether there could be an appearance, a suspicion of (inter)
JUDGE SHAW:  Well no the first one you have to do is the subjective one, is there an actual interest held by the Judge.
DEFENDANT:  I believe you have a political interest yes.
JUDGE SHAW:  You believe I have a political interest (inter)
DEFENDANT:  Yes.
JUDGE SHAW:  In whether you are acquitted, convicted, or the level of penalty.
DEFENDANT:  Yes.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well, thank you.  And now you need to go on to the objective test.
DEFENDANT:  I would refer to e-mail correspondence I had with the Magistrate’s Court Judicial Greffier in June… no sorry December 2008 and this was in connection with me seeking certain information which were effectively judicial directions and policies written and issued by the then Magistrate Mr. Ian Le Marquand in connection with the approaches and methodology to be used in jailing children.  There is a strong case to be argued that the actions of the Court in that practice were of themselves illegal, for example children were proactively sentenced to significant periods of time in jail.  Significant periods of time were spent by some children who were troublesome in solitary confinement conditions that would be simply unlawful were they even inflicted upon adults let alone children.  And I have had this correspondence in which I am strongly arguing that the Magistrate Court, the Jersey Magistrate’s Court system itself is criminally culpable, and legally negligent for its conduct in the way that it has taken to itself these policies of effectively breaking the Law and inflicting unlawful degrading inhuman and damaging and abusive treatment on already vulnerable and problematic children.  And it did actually take quite some time to get the relevant documentation, but I did in fact in the end.  So that proves the dispute I have with the Magistrate’s Court in Jersey as an entity.  Turning to E.C.H.R. Case Law, and I’m quoting from Human Rights Practice Sweet and Maxwell.
JUDGE SHAW:  Could you give me the reference please?
DEFENDANT:  Uhm… this is on page 6067, Human Rights Practice by Sweet and Maxwell.  And I’ll quote what the book says.  ‘Appearance of independence and impartiality is important because ‘what is at stake is the confidence which the courts in democratic society must inspire in the public’ and that refers to the case of Incal v Turkey.
JUDGE SHAW:  It’s the Turkey case yes?
DEFENDANT:  Yes, the applicable test has been described in the following ways, whether the public is ‘reasonably entitled’ to entertain doubts as to the independence or impartiality of the tribunal that refers to Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom.  Whether there are legitimate grounds for fearing that the tribunal is not independent or impartial, that refers to Langborger v Sweden 1989.  Whether there are ascertainable facts that may raise doubts and I think that there are, we already covered some of those, as to independence or impartiality.  That’s referring to the case of    Castillo Algar v Spain, or whether such doubts can be objectively justified.  13. That’s Hauschildt v Denmark, this test was adopted by the English Court of Appeal in Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods, so modifying the previous test for bias established in R.V. Goff which required that a real danger of bias be shown.  In Porter v Magull Lord Hope of Craighead approved that... approved that modification stating the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.  Moving on to another matter, and I refer back to the Parish Hall Enquiry here, which of itself is of a kind of quasi judicial process that determined that the express request of the States of Jersey Police that this matter be referred to the Court.
JUDGE SHAW:  But was that both matters or one matter Mr. Syvret?
DEFENDANT:  Both of them, that’s my understanding.
JUDGE SHAW:  The matter of no driving licence I don’t believe the Parish Hall has the power to deal with that.  So what I’m saying I don’t think a discretion could have been exercised in that case.
DEFENDANT:  Maybe but that isn’t actually the relevant point.  The fact is turning to page 6070 of the same book, chapter 6.128 Judge as member of the armed forces or police force, and it talks about Judges being involved in military capacity.  It goes on to say and I’ll quote.  ‘The same objectively justified doubts were found to exist where a member of the police force sits on a tribunal’ because.  ‘The ordinary citizen will tend to see him as a member of the police force subordinate to his superiors and loyal to his colleagues.  The situation of this kind may undermine the confidence which must be inspired by the court in a democratic society.  In short the applicant could legitimately have doubts as to the independence and organisational impartiality of the police board, and I would suggest that that actually is applicable to the Parish Hall Enquiry as a process and especially so in my particular case, because the Connetable of that Parish has waged a significant political war against myself and indeed my partner.
JUDGE SHAW:  So can I just clarify what you are saying about the Parish Hall Enquiry, that (inter)
DEFENDANT:  We have arrived at this point (inter)
JUDGE SHAW:  Just one moment Mr. Syvret, I just want to make this clear, as I understand it.  I believe there is only one matter in which the Parish Hall would have had any discretion as to whether to deal with your case or not, and that deals with the registration of the car, the other matter has to go to the Court.  So as far as the registration of the car is saying is concerned, you’re saying because the Honorary Police are involved in that process, they cannot be impartial in a Judicial process, and because they have decided to refer the matter to the Court then that somehow taints the Court’s credibility in sitting, I don’t quite see the connection.
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 #37 on: November 26, 2009, 01:12:26 PM »
DEFENDANT:  We have arrived at this point (inter)
JUDGE SHAW:  Just one moment Mr. Syvret, I just want to make this clear, as I understand it.  I believe there is only one matter in which the Parish Hall would have had any discretion as to whether to deal with your case or not, and that deals with the registration of the car, the other matter has to go to the Court.  So as far as the registration of the car is saying is concerned, you’re saying because the Honorary Police are involved in that process, they cannot be impartial in a Judicial process, and because they have decided to refer the matter to the Court then that somehow taints the Court’s credibility in sitting, I don’t quite see the connection.
DEFENDANT:  Well I mean the Parish Hall Enquiry is a part of the Island’s Judicial Apparatus.  It is therefore the case that when a Centenier is out doing his policing duties he is acting as a police officer, but when he sits to adjudicate on a Parish Hall Enquiry he is sitting as a quasi Judge, therefore when one looks at the activities, the actions, the decisions a Centenier may make when sitting as a quasi Judge at a Parish Hall Enquiry one has to ask is there a reasonable ground for viewing them as possibly being contaminated in their decisions because of the reasons quoted in the book, loyalty to colleagues, things of that nature, that I referred to.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well, is there anything else you wish to say?
DEFENDANT:  In general terms concerning recusal, the need for judicial processes to be seen to be impartial and objective is very strongly established, very robustly established, and it is not possible for any aspect of the Jersey judicial apparatus to meet that test in my case, and indeed probably a similar observation could be made in respect of a number of other non establishment figures, and we can cite a very real and relevant recent example of that in the frankly ludicrous and profoundly politicised fine of a total of £12,000 inflicted on the two J.D.A. Members.  So people such as myself who believe in modernising these systems in Jersey and who are opposed to the inadequacies of the current arrangement cannot expect to get fair treatment at the hands of this apparatus.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Morris do you wish to come back on that?
LEGAL ADVISER:  Madam, I don’t particularly wish to comment, but I will say this from an administrative point of view.  Mr Syvret has put certain arguments before you this morning, but he hasn’t provided any of those to the Legal Advisers or to the police or to the Centenier before coming to court this morning, but the decision of course in (indistinct) that for you Madam.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT:  Could I just point out that I only received the charge sheet this morning, and much of the other material which has been disclosed although that disclosure was inadequate.  Has only been disclosed to me very recently, indeed some material was disclosed to me just this morning, and I think as the e-mail correspondence demonstrates I have in fact genuinely tried to engage with and co-operate with all of the relevant procedures at the appropriate timeframes and any delays and deficiencies I put entirely at the feet of the States of Jersey Police Force and the C.J.U. and as far as I being able to actually produce copies of the authorities and things of that nature to use in this argument.  I am a carpenter I am not a lawyer, I left school at the age of 15, I am trying to represent myself on the fly, I really don’t think… especially given that the Jersey apparatus has expressly denied me effective legal representation I don’t think such criticisms can be taken as legitimate for one instant.
JUDGE SHAW:  I don’t think Mr. Morris is asking for an adjournment to follow these points up.
LEGAL ADVISER:   I am not Madam, no.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Syvret I don’t have a copy of Sweet and Maxwell may I borrow your copy.  I am going to retire and consider the points you have made.
DEFENDANT:  I would also say that recusal, my recusal application is also based, excuse me I forgot to mention this.
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2009, 02:20:27 PM »
Why are you copying and pasting all this crap from his blog for? He is a bang to rights law breaker with an arrest order on his head who has fled.  Senator Ben Shenton summed him up perfectly, you know, the man you referred to as a muppet on the vile blog, and the man who has been told he has gained multiple new voters for speaking his mind.  I accuse you of on purposely trolling this forum with a law breakers propaganda now and why, god only knows, his career is finished and he will be arrested if he ever comes back.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2009, 07:29:24 PM »
The reason im posting about this case is because its important its not every day a politician goes into exile so please look at the facts as posted and comment on them if not use the rant zone..

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline Durendal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2009, 07:45:55 PM »
DEFENDANT:  We have arrived at this point (inter)
JUDGE SHAW:  Just one moment Mr. Syvret, I just want to make this clear, as I understand it.  I believe there is only one matter in which the Parish Hall would have had any discretion as to whether to deal with your case or not, and that deals with the registration of the car, the other matter has to go to the Court.  So as far as the registration of the car is saying is concerned, you’re saying because the Honorary Police are involved in that process, they cannot be impartial in a Judicial process, and because they have decided to refer the matter to the Court then that somehow taints the Court’s credibility in sitting, I don’t quite see the connection.
DEFENDANT:  Well I mean the Parish Hall Enquiry is a part of the Island’s Judicial Apparatus.  It is therefore the case that when a Centenier is out doing his policing duties he is acting as a police officer, but when he sits to adjudicate on a Parish Hall Enquiry he is sitting as a quasi Judge, therefore when one looks at the activities, the actions, the decisions a Centenier may make when sitting as a quasi Judge at a Parish Hall Enquiry one has to ask is there a reasonable ground for viewing them as possibly being contaminated in their decisions because of the reasons quoted in the book, loyalty to colleagues, things of that nature, that I referred to.
JUDGE SHAW:  Very well, is there anything else you wish to say?
DEFENDANT:  In general terms concerning recusal, the need for judicial processes to be seen to be impartial and objective is very strongly established, very robustly established, and it is not possible for any aspect of the Jersey judicial apparatus to meet that test in my case, and indeed probably a similar observation could be made in respect of a number of other non establishment figures, and we can cite a very real and relevant recent example of that in the frankly ludicrous and profoundly politicised fine of a total of £12,000 inflicted on the two J.D.A. Members.  So people such as myself who believe in modernising these systems in Jersey and who are opposed to the inadequacies of the current arrangement cannot expect to get fair treatment at the hands of this apparatus.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Morris do you wish to come back on that?
LEGAL ADVISER:  Madam, I don’t particularly wish to comment, but I will say this from an administrative point of view.  Mr Syvret has put certain arguments before you this morning, but he hasn’t provided any of those to the Legal Advisers or to the police or to the Centenier before coming to court this morning, but the decision of course in (indistinct) that for you Madam.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT:  Could I just point out that I only received the charge sheet this morning, and much of the other material which has been disclosed although that disclosure was inadequate.  Has only been disclosed to me very recently, indeed some material was disclosed to me just this morning, and I think as the e-mail correspondence demonstrates I have in fact genuinely tried to engage with and co-operate with all of the relevant procedures at the appropriate timeframes and any delays and deficiencies I put entirely at the feet of the States of Jersey Police Force and the C.J.U. and as far as I being able to actually produce copies of the authorities and things of that nature to use in this argument.  I am a carpenter I am not a lawyer, I left school at the age of 15, I am trying to represent myself on the fly, I really don’t think… especially given that the Jersey apparatus has expressly denied me effective legal representation I don’t think such criticisms can be taken as legitimate for one instant.
JUDGE SHAW:  I don’t think Mr. Morris is asking for an adjournment to follow these points up.
LEGAL ADVISER:   I am not Madam, no.
JUDGE SHAW:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Syvret I don’t have a copy of Sweet and Maxwell may I borrow your copy.  I am going to retire and consider the points you have made.
DEFENDANT:  I would also say that recusal, my recusal application is also based, excuse me I forgot to mention this.


The criticism of the Parish Hall inquiry system is tenuous to sat the least as the admonishment of the Parish Hall is akin to a Police caution in the UK. The Parish Hall also decide if they need to send to court as the UK police do - cannot see the problem!

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2009, 08:22:06 PM »
In a way i wish he had paid sorted the driving offences and just stayed with data protection.. but then i didnt get my house raided and that also plays a big part.

The data protection is the big huge issue and i can see why all sides are fighting hard on this one..

I will get round to that one but i think its good looking at the points i really do..

rs
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 08:38:55 PM by rico sorda »
one ban away from oblivion rsx

The Backbencher

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2009, 11:13:49 PM »
The reason im posting about this case is because its important its not every day a politician goes into exile so please look at the facts as posted and comment on them if not use the rant zone..

rs

It is totally boring Mr Sorda because you are making it so repetitive.  Just keep it to his blog, some of us are trying to discuss politics on here, you know, proper issues, and there have been plenty of politicians trying to get asylum in the past but generally it is after committing mass genocide and not driving without a licence, which just goes to show on its own as to how pathetic he really is.

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2009, 01:12:13 AM »
UDGE SHAW:  And that part of the test the ruling in Hirschfield was that the reasonable suspicion test is the one for the determination of apparent bias, which I think, is the leg that you’re relying on.  And that’s been adopted in Jersey as being the easier for the applicant to meet, and also more appropriate having particular regard to Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.  The test was whether a reasonable objective and informed person aware of and having regard to all the correct facts considered there was a real suspicion or apprehension of bias, in that the Judge might unfairly favour or disfavour the case of one of the parties.  The burden was on the applicant to establish bias and no application for recusation should be accepted without strong grounds to support it, and Judges should not accede too readily to such applications.
DEFENDANT:  Okay.

I think that is straight forward..     I still think the bailiffs speech was a another bad speech and through no fault of bridget shaw she was in a difficult position. What was the then bailiff thinking putting that in her swearing in and the she gets the syvret case...

rs
one ban away from oblivion rsx

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Senator stuart syvret v AG
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2009, 01:20:17 AM »
Rico if you are trying to piss us off , you are doing a fine job. what relevance has any of this to the thread or is going to be changed to "Feckless **** tries to get clever with a magistrate"?
You keep saying stick to the thread , so why not take your own advice?