Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Bridget Shaw and her Court of Law


Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw


12th October 2011



The Magistrate Court



The Judge is Bridget Shaw



We have an alleged miscarriage of Justice - That took 6 months 



This includes an alleged;



 Anonymous Tip Off



Illegal Police Search



Allegations of  DIC 



Police evidence thrown out of court



A states analyst saying in his report that the person was under the limit when they drove



The person being allegedly caught, not in their car but at their home - "A lot more on this in a latter posting"



A lawyer asking Bridget Shaw to stand down as she had heard illegal evidence and there should be a re-trial 



Bridget Shaw saying something that goes in layman terms as "she would forget that she had heard it"



All the above happened to a very good friend of mine



The person in question is a mother of two 



Today this person was Sentenced to 5 months in prison

 


She had a previous conviction for DIC 5 years ago



I will do all I can in obtaining as much evidence as I can In finding out exactly what has gone on here.  



I want to know how Bridget Shaw came to her decision



This person has no interest in Politics  



I want to know what the hell is going on  at the Magistrate Court



You will read it all here



Rico Sorda




55 comments:

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Stuart Syvret, BBC and Community Service

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico

I have some slight knowldge of the case you refer to.

It is profoundly disturbing.

Really - we have to wonder, don't we - just how many ordinary, powerless people are trampled - without proper justice - by the Jersey system.

I begin to think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

The Jersey 'judicial' and 'prosecution' system msut be repaired.

Stuart

GeeGee said...

Rico - having sat in the Court during this hearing and sentencing, I must admit, without hearing the whole story that goes alongside this, that I too was almost as shocked as the poor lady when this sentence was passed.

Notwithstanding I also understand she is someone suffering a serious illness.

Bridget Shaw showed as little compassion as a garden gnome, as equally she was quite, quite determined she was not going to listen or tolerate Stuart's new evidence.

I hope your friend goes down the appeal route Rico, as something does not ring true here.

rico sorda said...

I will do what I have always done and that is to obtain the evidence and let the facts speak for themselves. This will be over a number of postings.

Who keeps the checks and balances on the judgements passed by Assistant Magistrate Shaw? Is she getting advice from the Law Office or is the decision hers.

rs

ageofaquarius said...

Glad you are on the case Rico, this is just so unjust, she was stitched up, corruption at its worst. The lady was innocent. Wish it had been Bob Day on the bench, he would have said 'element of doubt' and thrown it out.

Anonymous said...

Rico, So glad you are on the case. It is indeed a miscarriage of justice, how does Ms Shaw sleep at night after sending an innocent mother of two down for 5 months, completely over the top, anyway, she is innocent, she wasn't even behind the wheel but at home enjoying lunch with her mum! insane or what. All because she knew someone who knew someone!
And Bridget is supposed to be a christian huh! the worst kind

Ian Evans said...

I think I know a couple of guys who may be able to assist you Rico :)

Anonymous said...

5 MONTHS!!!!!! Christ, how much over the limit was she? Look forward to reading all the details about this case..

Anonymous said...

hi rico,

your friend should lodge an appeal
asap (if not done already)against both conviction and sentence

it's long past time that we as a
people deal with this rogue judiciary

cyril

Anonymous said...

your friend should lodge an appeal
asap (if not done already)against both conviction and sentence

Could not agree more. It's not just Stuart Syvret getting done over down at the magistrate court.

Anonymous said...

Must watch

Anonymous said...

rico, you want to know what is going on at the magistrates court.
when looked at closely enough the answer to you question becomes uavoidable,

constructive fraud

large scale,daily,profitable with intent and for decades

indeed longstanding magistrates can get to view their victims as stupid and deserving the grift,this is seen everyday with the attitude of contempt shown to those appearing before them, in the more bizarre and extreme examples this includes ignoring evidence.

they see our lack of due diligence as a crime worthy of punishment and our reliance on lawyers to speak for us as the act of a child,incompetant at looking after itself and requiring correction.

the 3-4% they let off satisfies the plausible deniability doctrine

cyril

rico sorda said...

Cyril, I agree with what you say. The thing is, apart from Stuart, no one has really challenged what is going on at the Magistrate Court. There is a culture of Fear in Jersey a culture where you are attacked for asking questions and challenging what you are told. Over the next coming weeks I hope to be reviewing the evidence, publishing the evidence where legally possible and stage by stage we will see if the Assistant Magistrate made the right decision in banging up a mother of two for 5 months.

When this person asked her lawyer if she should appeal her guilty conviction she was told not to bother and save her money as a jersey JUDGE WOULD NEVER UNDERMINE ANOTHER JERSEY JUDGE.

This person was judged to be 4 times the legal limit.

This person was not stopped in their car

This person arrived home at 12 in the afternoon -she was very stressed and started drinking ( more on this soon) the police turn up at 1;15 in the afternoon after an anonymous tip off. The police officer admitted in court that he didn't give the accused time to find and show him the wine bottle she had been drunk but just arrested her. The accused had her house searched with an article 20 warrant this is apparently only issued for very serious offences.

The States Analyst said she was under the limit when she drove home.

Now, I think there is enough there for me to get stuck in to.

rs

Ian Evans said...

"Cyril, I agree with what you say. The thing is, apart from Stuart, no one has really challenged what is going on at the Magistrate Court."


Errr, EXCUSE ME RICO!!!

Your avin a laugh ain't ya???

rico sorda said...

Sorry Ian what I meant was not in the full glare of the public with some kind of unbalanced media reporting.

Anyway I hope you know what I mean

Now what the hell is an article 20 warrant?

rs

Ian Evans said...

20 is "enter and search after arrest" in the P.A.C.E code

Anonymous said...

hi rico,

Stuart is doing his best to expose the corrupt courts of commerce in jersey

unfortunately he is going to a gun fight armed with a knife

he is more than welcome to use my AK47, metaphorically speaking of course

cyril

Anonymous said...

When the police arrived at the house at 1:15 did they already have the warrant?

Find out on what evidence'BS'found this lady guilty. Has she found her guilty, not on evidence, but because she thinks she might be guilty.

You are right to look at this case

Anonymous said...

Article 20


20 Entry and search after arrest

(1) Subject to this Article, a police officer may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for a serious offence or for any other offence the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of one year or more, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates –
(a) to that offence; or
(b) to some other offence which is connected with or similar to that offence.

(2) A police officer may seize and retain anything for which he may search under paragraph (1).
(3) The power to search conferred by paragraph (1) is only a power to search to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering that evidence.

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), the powers conferred by this Article may not be exercised unless, in the case of the Force, an officer of at least the rank of inspector, or in the case of an honorary police officer, a Connétable or Centenier in respect of premises in his parish, has authorized them in writing.

(5) A police officer may conduct a search under paragraph (1) before taking the person to a police station and without obtaining an authorization under paragraph (4), if the presence of that person at a place other than a police station is necessary for the effective investigation of the offence.

(6) If a police officer conducts a search by virtue of paragraph (5), he shall inform, in the case of the Force, an officer of at least the rank of inspector or, in the case of an honorary police officer, a Connétable or Centenier in respect of premises in his parish, that he has made the search as soon as practicable after he has made it.
(7) An officer of the Force, Connétable or Centenier who authorizes a search or is informed of a search under paragraph (6), shall make a record in writing of the grounds for the search and of the nature of the evidence that was sought.
(8) A Connétable or Centenier who authorizes or is informed of a search shall notify the Chief Officer for record keeping and recording purposes.
(9) If the person who was in occupation or control of the premises at the time of the search is in police detention at the time the record is to be made, the officer shall make the record as part of his custody

rico sorda said...

This is part of the message that made me sit up and take notice of what happened.

Hi Rico, so sorry for taking so long to e mail you. It's been a very difficult few weeks since I was found guilty. Anyways I'm being sentenced tomorrow and it may be a custodial so wanted you to have the facts surrounding my conviction.
Back in April, I left my friends house at midday on the Sunday morning after inviting my mum for lunch. I'd been receiving verbally abuse e mails from an ex throughout the evening. While leaving my friends flat I was approached by a friend who had said that my ex was in the Beau Rivage the night beofre and caimed to have taken naked photos of me when I was asleep and was going to put them on Facebook. As you are aware I've **** ***** and this totally made my head bounce around like a ping pong ball!!! On arriving at my home at approx 5 mins past 12 I started drinking as couldn't cope with what i'd just heard. (Never the answer but hind sight is a great thing!!!) Then at approx 1.15pm a police officer turned up to say that they had rec'd an anonymous phonecall (I belive this to be the ex) saying I'd got into my car apparently under the influence. NOT TRUE I didn't touch a drop till I got home. Anyways, it took six months to get to trial. The states analyst said in his report I was under the limit when I drove. The police officer admitted in court that he didn't give me time to find and show him the wine bottle but just arrested me. He then admitted in court that when he asked his superior for a warrant to search my house for the bottle of wine, said bottle was in the back of his police car the whole time. He was issued with an artical 20 warrant (This is for serious offences only) and was therefore issued with this illegally and my house searched illegally. All the police evidence was thrown out of court. My advocate then asked Bridget Shaw to stand down as she had heard illegal evidence and there should be a re trail. sh esaid she would 'forget she had heard it'!!! Rico I was still found guilty despite all this and also the fact I was nevereven caught in my car and the police didn't come round for over an hour after I got home....... I'm so confused and don't understand how the establishment can get away with things like this. Please, please let me know your feelings If it's easier please call me or text me. I'm scared they put me in prison!!!! Thanks Rico

They did for 5 months

There is even more to this story.

You cant just do nothing

rs

Anonymous said...

what a disgusting piece of work Shaw is

please get your friend to lodge an appeal asap, do not listen to the lawyer, they have an overriding duty to the court, thier hands are tied.

mine are not and I will assist in anyway possible if required

cyril

Anonymous said...

Rico,On what evidence did Shaw base her conviction on? do you even know yet? Did they have any solid proof that she was drunk driving? Did anyone give evidence against her saying that she was driving all over the place?

Rico,what the hell is going on here?

Anonymous said...

"The police officer admitted in court that he didn't give me time to find and show him the wine bottle but just arrested me. He then admitted in court that when he asked his superior for a warrant to search my house for the bottle of wine, said bottle was in the back of his police car the whole time. He was issued with an artical 20 warrant (This is for serious offences only) and was therefore issued with this illegally and my house searched illegally."

You are having a laugh here right. There is no way the above happened on a guilty verdict. You need to find out ASAP exactly what Shaw based her verdict on.How you go about that im not sure contacting the magistrate courl could be a start.

Ian Evans said...

Malfeasance In The Courtroom

ageofaquarius said...

Did Ms Shaw even contemplate the social consequences of imprisoning her for such a long period with two teenage boys at home, does she even care! How is her rent going to be paid to keep a roof over their heads, what is it going to cost the tax payer to keep her in prison. Everything about this case is so wrong. Also, do the police have a hidden agenda, it certainly looks that way.

Anonymous said...

The evil one should have given a full judgement with all the FACTS which allowed her to arrive at a guilty verdict. Was that done? Shaw is the devils daughter

Ian Evans said...

That's NOT FAIR on the Devil!!!

Anonymous said...

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, this woman got to 4 times the legal limit from a standing start - not touching "a drop till (she) got home" - in one hour and 10 minutes maximum? Physically, that would be hard to do unless one was drinking spirits. Also, how could the analyst possibly know if she was "under the limit" when she drove? They're not psychic, you know.

An alternative explanation is that the woman actually did drive under the influence and topped up after she got home and has made this up because she knew that her second DIC offence in a few years would get her hammered.

Police are very well used to arguments that are used to attempt to avoid a DIC charge like "I had a crash and was so shocked that I left the scene, went home and had a few drinks to calm my nerves".

None of the foregoing excuses the usual police/Magistrate crap though I'm sure some of it can be explained because they are sometimes so convinced of some people's guilt, particularly people who have committed the same offence before, that they bend the rules when the evidence isn't enough to convict beyond any reasonable doubt.

rico sorda said...

The evidence is all im concerned with & nothing else. Lets see what we uncover.

rs

Anonymous said...

Police are very well used to arguments that are used to attempt to avoid a DIC charge like "I had a crash and was so shocked that I left the scene, went home and had a few drinks to calm my nerves".

No Crash,No Scene,No Car,No Police evidence?

Rico, what was left for Shaw to come to her judgement of 5 months in prison. Get hold of the evidence and do what you do best. I have been to the shop for my papers and guess what i'm on my 3rd glass as the roast is cooking. What if the police knock on my door after an anonymous call saying that I had clipped the curb? Think about it...

Ian Evans said...

Either way, the evidence will speak for itself, simple as....

Anonymous said...

Good luck rico. I feel so sorry for this poor lady. I hope she wins at appeal.

word verification: distreis

Distress indeed!

ahimsa

Anonymous said...

I'm the same anon that "played Devil's advocate". I just don't want Rico to fall into a trap and support a dodgy story because it will be used by those against you that you (maybe) unknowingly support drunk drivers who make up stories.

If your "very good friend" has been less than honest it won't look good to the general public for you to be supporting a convicted double DIC

Anonymous said...

On average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions.

Nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit.

Approximately half of convicted drink drivers have blood alcohol levels in excess of 150mg%. Around 12 per cent of convicted drink drivers are convicted of a second offence within ten years.

It very unlikely she would have been convicted without evidence! 4 times over the limit is a substantial amount and second DIC conviction, deserves to go to prison. sorry!!

rico sorda said...

Dear Anonymous

Thank you for your concern.

As you will aware I work on evidence. I hope to be obtaining this shortly.

If the person in question is Guilty then so be it. I have no problem with that. This isn't a straight forward case. I always believe at looking at things and asking questions there is more to this case than meets the eye.

A couple of years ago this lady met a man and they dated for a little while. As with all new dates you meet you never really know who that person is.

Then, one day her world fell apart. Then man she had recently met and dated was one Jonathon Welsh. Jonathon Welsh, in case you don't know, was Curtis Warrens right hand man in the Jersey Drug Smuggling Plot. This resulted in her house being raided. The Police checked every thing. What scared her most was this man had been in her house and the safety of her children.

The Prosecution lawyer mentioned during her DIC trial that she kept dodgy company.

I will look at the evidence and what evidence B.Shaw used to reach her guilty verdict..

This is what must be done

If Rose is guilty then so be it

But believe me after spending 3 years investigating the Child Abuse Cover up and over related issues I know that anything is possible over here.

Never be afraid to look and ask questions

RS

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

State Media, Democracy and Sir Philip

Mr Concerned said...

I was present throughout the court case talked about above, all i can say is that I was sadden and appalled by what I saw in the court-room.

The police didnt even bother to turn up to the trial on the 1st day, the 2nd day the evidence was easily shown to be a sham by the advocate. A search was only done in the main bedroom and the kitchen of the property. The police officer who took evidence on the initial search of the property, then got the search warranty and searched for the very evidence he had already taken on the 1st visit. The police continually delayed evidence from the scene being shown to th defence, when it was finally surrendered the evidence corroborated the defendants version of events. The officer questioned by the defendants advocatewas clearly embarrased at having to contradict his own evidence several times.

Bridget Shaw herself then raised the question of the search being done illegally, which was proved to be correct. Quite rightly the defendants advocate moved for Bridget Jones to excuse herself (havin listen to all the defenses illegally obtained evidence) ......... she refused!! She claimed to possess the unique ability to disregard illegally-obtained evidence and make a decision based on virtually zero prosecution evidence ?!

HOW CAN THIS BE RIGHT!!!

There is no-way possible to even suggest this was a fair fight. This has been my only close-up view of Jersey justice to date and frankly how can any of us be certain that we will receive fair justice with the system in its current form?
What we seem to have is a one-woman crusade to empty the streets, not give us normal people a fair trial.

This is no made-up story, its a view of what really happens behind the courts doors.

Anonymous said...

on the face of it,there is no evidence that she was D.I.C.

Why would they bother arresting her,on the unproved claim of one individual?

Why would they want to search her home.What possible evidence of a D.I.C. could they possibly expect to find in her home?

rico sorda said...

Mr Concerned

Thank you so much for your comment. What you state ties in with what i've been hearing about this case & why im waiting for the evidence. This must be seriously looked at and it will be.

"Quite rightly the defendants advocate moved for Bridget Jones to excuse herself (havin listen to all the defenses illegally obtained evidence) ......... she refused!! She claimed to possess the unique ability to disregard illegally-obtained evidence and make a decision based on virtually zero prosecution evidence"

That alone is very Scary

She did the same with Stuart Syvret

rs

Ian Evans said...

AVOIDING JURISDICTION IN COURT

Ian Evans said...

VOTING GUIDE

Anonymous said...

Health Ministers Sued Over Two Cases of Child Abuse
18.10.11
Where's the headlines, this is so important and yet all you are concerned about is a drunk driver.
Sorry RICO but I have lost a lot of faith in you.

rico sorda said...

Health Ministers Sued Over Two Cases of Child Abuse
18.10.11
Where's the headlines, this is so important and yet all you are concerned about is a drunk driver.
Sorry RICO but I have lost a lot of faith in you.

No problem I can live with it.

Cant do everything

rs

Ian Evans said...

Thank God I got this firm on legal aid....HANSON/RENOUF

Blog Reader said...

"Anonymous said...

Health Ministers Sued Over Two Cases of Child Abuse
18.10.11
Where's the headlines, this is so important and yet all you are concerned about is a drunk driver.
Sorry RICO but I have lost a lot of faith in you."



After everything he's already done with this blog over the past couple of years, if you can so easily "lose faith" in Rico because he failed to cover one story, I can only assume your version of "faith" wasn't that strong to begin with.

Ian Evans said...

The Monster's Ball

Zoompad said...

"Sorry RICO but I have lost a lot of faith in you."

Take no notice, it's just a troll

Keep strong. xx

Ian Evans said...

AND SO THE BULLYING BEGINS!

rico sorda said...

Due to not being able to obtain any of the hard evidence concerning this case I will have to wait till Rose is out of prison. This will be clearly looked at. Im hearing this is happening more & more. I hope Rose, family & friends can get through this tough period.

Without the evidence there isn't much we can do at the moment which is very frustrating

es

rico sorda said...

Due to not being able to obtain any of the hard evidence concerning this case I will have to wait till Rose is out of prison. This will be clearly looked at. Im hearing this is happening more & more. I hope Rose, family & friends can get through this tough period.

Without the evidence there isn't much we can do at the moment which is very frustrating

es

rico sorda said...

Due to not being able to obtain any of the hard evidence concerning this case I will have to wait till Rose is out of prison. This will be clearly looked at. Im hearing this is happening more & more. I hope Rose, family & friends can get through this tough period.

Without the evidence there isn't much we can do at the moment which is very frustrating

es

rico sorda said...

Due to not being able to obtain any of the hard evidence concerning this case I will have to wait till Rose is out of prison. This will be clearly looked at. Im hearing this is happening more & more. I hope Rose, family & friends can get through this tough period.

Without the evidence there isn't much we can do at the moment which is very frustrating

es

Anonymous said...

Rico

Are you unable to obtain hard evidence because there is none.?

Anonymous said...

surely there is an appeal on the way?

Anonymous said...

surely there is an appeal on the way?

Not that we know about. Rico, cant do anything until he can see the evidence. No matter how long it takes this case will be looked at.