Wednesday, February 29, 2012

OPERATION END-GAME - 5- SENATOR LE MARQUAND & THE CORPORATE SOLE


OPERATION END GAME -5



Senator Ian Le Marquand



Questions must be answered



A straight forward Blog Posting



I intend on keeping my readers up to date with what im doing. 



Here are the emails that I sent firstly to the Law Office and then all States Members. I believe they are easy to follow. I will not give up asking the questions. This is a very important question and its all about the 'CORPORATE SOLE' and what Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand said in his first suspension review with Graham Power. All States members should know the legality of the Corporate Sole so I decided to ask the and the Law Office. I received 2 replies from States memebers - Deputy T Pitman and Deputy T Vallois - A submission from former Senator Stuart Syvret but as of going to press I haven't yet received a reply from the Law Office.



This is why I sent the emails and its taken from suspension review 1.It is a pivotal moment in the whole debacle.



Rico Sorda 



Team Voice



Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. "







From: rico sorda

Subject: RE: Attorney General (Operation blast)

To: "Tim Allen"

Date: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012, 13:51


Dear Mr Allen,

 

As i'm still awaiting the reply from the Attorney General I have one further point I would like to raise with him. As Attorney General he gives legal advice to the council of ministers. During the suspension review of Graham Power, the Minister for Home Affairs states  and I quote; Could the Attorney General confirm that what the minister states is legally correct.

 

Also, Is it correct, that one Minister cant review a decision of the previous Minister

 

I look forward to a prompt reply to these simple issues

 

Kind Regards

 

Rico Sorda

 

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. "

 

 

Dr. T. Brain:

Thank you, Minister. I must formally state for the record that we are most concerned that before we have been given the opportunity to state our case considerable amounts of that case seems to be something that you will not consider. We have to make it quite clear that there have been material breaches of points 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.3.1 of the code. These are not technical breaches, these are material breaches and render null and void the original suspension. I do hope that we can consider these matters today as we are keen to support the administrative process that you have entered into in good faith. We would rather that we are addressing these matters as part of an administrative review before we have to consider these matters in a judicial review. So I would ask you to reconsider your opinion that you have just offered there in order that we may fully state the grounds for the reinstatement of Mr. Power. I would make it quite clear that the material breaches are only part of the submission but they are nevertheless an integral part of the submission.






Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do. Mr. Power has sought redress in relation to that matter, as you know, through judicial review but I am not going to open an investigation into whether or not the procedure was correct initially. What I want to do today is to start looking at what is the correct procedure that ought now to apply in relation to the matter, not as to whether or not it was correctly applied originally. Does that clarify my position









from: rico sorda

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM


To: i.lemarquand@gov.je


Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, "gerrard baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , j.baker@gov.je, "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "jep" , "Francis" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "judy martin" , "m paddock" , m.tadier@gov.je, mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan" , p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "p.rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , r.duhamel@gov.je, "richard rondel" , "sadie rennard" , t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, r.bryans@gov.je, m.letroquer@gov.je, s.luce@gov.je, k.moore2@gov.je, s.pinel@gov.je, e.noel@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, sp.power@gov.je, j.refault@gov.je, a.pryke@gov.je, "jon gripton"


Date: Thursday, 23 February, 2012, 21:39


Dear States Members,


I have a problem.  I hope  as a collective you will be able to help me out. When Graham Power was suspended on the 12th November 2008 he underwent a suspension review in February & March 2009. These reviews were conducted by the new Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.  The first meeting occurred on Friday 13th February ( yes, you couldn't make it up) 


During this meeting Senator Le Marquand states that he couldn't conduct a review of the original suspension because the Home Affairs Minister is a 'CORPORATION SOLE'. So are we saying that no minister can conduct a review of the previous incumbents decisions? With 51 states members I'm hoping someone will be able to confirm if that is true or not. Now I fully understand why Senator Le Marquand didn't want to go anywhere near the original suspension which has been pointed out in previous emails - but its the reason given that intrigues me. 


I believe it would better to clear these issues up here. Im sure the minister himself will explain how the 'Corporation Sole' works.


Is it legally binding that the HA Minister cannot review a decision by the previous incumbent 


This was a pivotal moment at the beginning of Graham Powers suspension Review as read here  http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/ the second review can be read on my blog and should be.


Look forward to you're help on this serious issue


Kind Regards


Rico Sorda


This is from Graham Powers Suspension Review 1 -  February 13 2009 

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do



http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/


Citizen Investigator






From: rico sorda 

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM


To: i.lemarquand@gov.je


Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, "gerrard baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , j.baker@gov.je, "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "jep" , "Francis" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "judy martin" , "m paddock" , m.tadier@gov.je, mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan" , p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "p.rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , r.duhamel@gov.je, "richard rondel" , "sadie rennard" , t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, r.bryans@gov.je, m.letroquer@gov.je, s.luce@gov.je, k.moore2@gov.je, s.pinel@gov.je, e.noel@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, sp.power@gov.je, j.refault@gov.je, a.pryke@gov.je, "jon gripton"

Date: Saturday, 25 February, 2012, 10:40


Dear State Members, 


I haven't received one single reply. The question I'm asking is very straight forward. I have previously approached the Attorney General with the very same question, yet he seems reluctant to give me an answer. So, do I now lobby one of my representatives to get a question lodged in the States? I know some members are fed up with questions but if you don't get answers what can you do. The question I have raised goes to the constitutional heart of Ministerial Government. I would expect my States Members to be informed on the legality and procedures of the "CORPORATION SOLE"


The more replies I get the better. Some might have differing opinions.


 Let us be under no illusion that the issues I'm raising are deadly serious.



Kind Regards 


Rico Sorda 

 

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/


Citizen Investigator






From: rico sorda

Subject: Re: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM


To: i.lemarquand@gov.je, T.Allen@gov.je


Cc: A.Breckon@gov.je, "gerrard baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , j.baker@gov.je, "Deirdry" , dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com, "jep" , "Francis" , i.gorst@gov.je, j.hilton@gov.je, j.lef@gov.je, j.lesueurgallichan@gov.je, j.macon@gov.je, j.reed@gov.je, k.lewis@gov.je, l.norman@gov.je, "judy martin" , "m paddock" , m.tadier@gov.je, mr.higgins@gov.je, news@channeltv.co.uk, "p ryan" , p.leclaire@gov.je, p.ozouf@gov.je, "p.rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , r.duhamel@gov.je, "richard rondel" , "sadie rennard" , t.pitman@gov.je, t.vallois@gov.je, r.bryans@gov.je, m.letroquer@gov.je, s.luce@gov.je, k.moore2@gov.je, s.pinel@gov.je, e.noel@gov.je, s.pitman@gov.je, s.crowcroft@gov.je, sp.power@gov.je, j.refault@gov.je, a.pryke@gov.je, "jon gripton"

Date: Tuesday, 28 February, 2012, 13:37


Dear all States Member & Media

 

I have now received two replies concerning the  "Corporate Sole."

 

The first reply is from Deputy Vallois. I would like to thank her for taking the time to respond to my question. As I have stated before, its important that all members know the workings of the corporate sole. This stems from my concerns regarding the actions of the current Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand and his continued suspension of former Chief of police Graham Power.

 

This is my first concern regarding the actions of Senator Le Marquand 

 

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:


"There is no problem with you making submissions in relation to the effect of the various different parts of the disciplinary code; I anticipated and expected that you would do that. But in the context of how I should now be dealing with the matter what I am not prepared to do, and have not at any point indicated I would do - and indeed made it clear, I believe, in proceedings in the States that I would not do - is to seek to conduct a review of the decision of the Home Affairs Minister when originally suspending. To do that, because the Home Affairs Minister is a corporation sole, effectively I would be reviewing my own decision and that I cannot do

 

 

 This is the reply From Deputy Vallois. It is very helpful and starts the ball rolling

 

Rico


Corporate Sole is defined under the States of Jersey Law 2005 under Article 26 subject to Article 29 (2).


The Corporate Sole is a single incorporated office which is a legal entity.  This is obviously occupied by a different Member of the States of Jersey every three years (depending on the election process for ministers of course).

This would enable the office of the Home Affairs department to have legal continuity under the name of the Minister for Home Affairs (the legal entity).


I think a proper definition would have to be confirmed by a lawyer however, I would imagine the reason for Senator Le Marquand being unable to review the original suspension himself is because if the office of Home Affairs were to be taken to court for anything pertaining to the original suspension then it is Senator Le Marquand that would have to uphold the decisions on behalf of the office in which he holds.


I hope this goes some way to helping and apologies for not responding sooner.


Kind regards


Tracey


 

I have now received a reply from a former States Member. This goes into the issues a little more. I did ask the Attorney General for a advice on this but as of writing I haven't received a reply.

 

This is the reply I received from a former States Member

 

 

Rico


The first half of what Deputy Vallois says is true - in respect of the ‘corporate sole’ - meaning that it is the legal entity of Home Affairs Minister that carries perpetual legal responsibility - rather than merely a current incumbent.


However, the Deputy’s explanation goes off-the-rails when she attempts to explain why Home Affairs Minister, Senator Le Marquand "could not" re-examine the original suspension.


Implicit in the Deputy’s answer to you is the notion that Senator Le Marquand - upon re-considering the original suspension - will have wanted to maintain it in any event - no matter what he found. That then would have placed him in a very difficult position when he then wished to carry on defending the original suspension in court. (I can only assume that's what the Deputy is trying to say.)


But the explanation the Deputy offers is irrelevant; even if it is a correct interpretation of Senator Le Marquand’s thinking or more realistically, the thinking of those whose orders he was obeying his actions are still illegitimate and ultra vires.


Judicial review case-law is very, very clear about the legal standards of decision-making by public authorities. Any such authority the Home Affairs Minister in this case has to make a legally right decision even if the only legally right decision they can make is a decision they don’t want to make.


This is the very core of administrative law. Public authorities cannot just do whatever they feel like. Certainly, they have a degree of latitude in making what are termed discretionary decisions that is, decisions in which an element of judgment-call is at play, rather than it being a clear cut right or wrong decision. But that degree of latitude does not apply in respect of the decisions of the authority having to be lawful. Their decisions must comply with the law.


Therefore, if an authority like the Home Affairs Minister makes a decision using an unlawful procedure for example, by failing to make sufficient inquiry or taking into account irrelevant material or using a procedure that is structurally unfair then the decision in question is unlawful. End of.


The decisions of the Home Affairs Minister in this case are plainly unlawful. They don’t even get onto the radar-screen of being lawful decisions; for so many different reasons.


We then consider what administrative law judicial review case-law says in respect of public authorities that may have made unlawful decisions?


The case-law is plain and unambiguous.


If a public authority has made a decision and there then arises questions as to the lawfulness of that decision the public authority is obliged by law to re-consider its decision in ways that are lawful. If it is pointed out to an authority that they have made some procedural error or they have failed to take into account relevant evidence or have mistakenly taken into account un-relevant evidence or they have acted in ways not compatible with human rights then the legal expectation and burden upon that authority is that they must re-consider the decisions in question - and do so in ways that are lawful this time.


In England at least the courts take a very dim view of public authorities that resist reviewing what are plainly wrong, unlawful decisions. It is regarded as a waste of people's time and resources for the courts to be asked to review an action by an authority, when the case-law and the evidence relevant to the disputed decision are already clear, and show the decision to be ultra vires.


Far from it not being possible or not desirable for Senator Le Marquand  to have re-considered the original suspension decisions he was, actually, legally obliged to do just that reconsider them in light of every obvious and evidenced grounds for the original decisions being unlawfully wrong.


When we read the assertions by him - and when we consider the conduct of what passes for a judiciary in Jersey we are simply viewing an asylum taken over by the lunatics.


Not only would Graham Power’s judicial review application have won hands-down  - in England, events would never have got so far as to reach such a stage.


In summary, it is law that all public authorities including Home Affairs Ministers - review the decisions made in the name of the corporate sole, if grounds emerge for considering that the original decisions may be unlawful.


It is as simple as that.


Stuart Syvret


 

Now you see why im asking the questions, I want the answers, its as simple as that. This is just a small aspect of the huge concerns I have about the removal of the Chief of Police on the12th November 2008 and the consquent actions of the current Home Affairs Minister.

 

What im also working on is the amazing statement by Senator Le Marquand at the last sitting that he used not just the Warcup letter but also the press briefing notes of the 12th November (written by warcup & Matt Tapp)  and public opinion in keeping the Chief of Police Suspended.

 

Just where did the Home Affairs Minister go to judge public opinion? The Jep? The Jep Editorial? The South Pier Tea Rooms?

 

The Home Affairs Minister used public opinion and not the 4 ACPO Reports produced during Operation Rectangle

 

This is astonishing - more on this to follow

 

Now you see why the Coroprate Sole is important

 

Something is seriously not  right. I

 

And I want answers seeing  as my Media has been neuted since 1948

 

Kind Regards

 

Rico Sorda



http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/


Citizen Investigator






From: Trevor Pitman


Subject: RE: The Illegal and Continued suspension of Graham Power QPM


To: "rico sorda", "Ian Le Marquand" , "Tim Allen"

Cc: "Alan Breckon" , "Gerard Baudains" , "Sir Philip Bailhache (Senator)" , "James Baker" , "Deidre Mezbourian" , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , "JEP Editorial" , "Francis Le Gresley" , "Ian Gorst" , "Jacqueline Hilton" , "John Le Fondre" , "John Le Sueur Gallichan" , "Jeremy Macon" , "James Reed" , "Kevin Lewis" , "Len Norman" , "Judith Martin" , "Michael J. Paddock" , "Montfort Tadier" , "Mike R. Higgins" , "news@channeltv.co.uk" , "Patrick Ryan" , "p.leclaire@gov.je" , "Philip Ozouf" , "Philip Rondel" , "Paul Routier" , "ben queree" , "Robert Duhamel" , "Richard Rondel" , "Sadie Rennard" , "Tracey Vallois" , "Rod Bryans" , "Michel Le Troquer (Connetable POSMN)" , "Steve Luce" , "Kristina Moore" , "Susie Pinel" , "Edward Noel" , "Shona Pitman" , "Simon Crowcroft" , "Sean Power" , "John Refault" , "Anne Pryke" , "jon gripton"

Date: Wednesday, 29 February, 2012, 13:46


Mr.. Sorda

 

As one of those who kept asking questions about this (not that you would know it from the JEP coverage) yet kept being told the CM couldn't comment etc I can assure you that there are those of us who won't be letting this slip away. Slip away to be filed under that good old Establishment Party fob-off 'the important thing now is to move forward and learn from what happened - not hold people to account'. How many times have we heard this pathetic excuse for cover-ups wheeled out?

 

The one thing that we must ensure happens is that Chief Minister Bailhache does not manage to scupper 'Chief Minister' Gorst's commitment to the Committee of Enquiry in to the 'Historic' Abuse saga. So long as this goes ahead without being hamstrung by the deliberate removal of some Terms of Reference the truth will finally out.

 

On the plus side, let's be fair to Senator Gorst for finally keeping his promise on revealing these figures as he had assured me that he would.. Now if he only makes good the other two promises that earned him my vote for Chief Minister i.e. genuine inclusive government and support for a fully independent Electoral Commission rather than a hijacked by personal interests one things could be looking up!

 

Regards

 

Deputy Trevor Pitman


32 comments:

Anonymous said...

From Mr Stuart Syvret's excellent reply, ..."even if the only legally right decision they can make is a decision they don’t want to make.This is the very core of administrative law. Public authorities cannot just do whatever they feel like."

From Mr Syvret's analysis, it should be clear that Mr Le Marquand's confusion could be a profound instigator of constitutional crisis anywhere else. Mr Le Marquand believes he owes a duty of protection not to the public, but to the "corporation". Were he only a silly little man with no constraints it would be dangerous enough, but he is receiving advice from Law Offices, and is under the protection of considerably powerful entities.

Ian Evans said...

THE BLAME GAME

rico sorda said...

Im not sure what the problem is as everything looks fine from my side. On what part are you struggling with the blog and i will try and sort it. I have been in the edit function but not really sure what I'm looking for.

Anonymous said...

"but he is receiving advice from Law Offices"

He has to seek advice but he does not have to follow it!!

Anonymous said...

Just where did the Home Affairs Minister go to judge public opinion? The Jep? The Jep Editorial? The South Pier Tea Rooms?

Classic and true....

Anonymous said...

Re: ``but he is receiving advice from Law Offices''

I suppose the advice of the law Office could at a pinch be classed as `public oppinion', that is of course if you are once again trying to hood wink the real public!

Anonymous said...

£½m pay-off: ‘No need for apology’
Thursday 1st March 2012, 3:00PM GMT.
Former Chief Minister Frank Walker and former States chief executive Bill Ogley
FORMER Chief Minister Frank Walker has accepted a major part of the responsibility for the £546,337.50 payoff to ex-States chief executive Bill Ogley.

However the retired politician – who today gives the most detailed account yet of how the ‘golden handshake’ was approved – has said he does not need to apologise.

Instead, he is standing by the decision to amend Mr Ogley’s contract to include the lucrative pay-off as security against attacks by States Members on senior civil servants in 2005.

Mr Walker – the president of the Policy and Resources Committee at the time – also revealed that Mr Ogley had been head-hunted by a UK council and offered a much higher salary than he was being paid in Jersey


If only we had listened to Syvret. He was right then and he is right now.

You couldn't make this up. Yet, how tragic and sad this whole chapter of jersey is....

Anonymous said...

Instead, he is standing by the decision to amend Mr Ogley’s contract to include the lucrative pay-off as security against attacks by States Members on senior civil servants in 2005

Christ, is Frank blaming Syvret for this lol

Anonymous said...

Well the truth is definitely out there now. Hopefully in time justice will also prevail.

Or will the powers that be, seeing the way the wind is blowing, merely throw up a significant smokescreen aided by the media to deflect public attention from the underlying corruption and cover up.

A significant smokescreen and distraction in the form of fanning the flames of public outcry at the outrageous golden handshake given to Bill Ogley for example, and then attempting to steer public opinion away from the real corruption and cover up that has occurred.

Or maybe I'm just being too cynical and viewing the oligarchs as absolutely corrupt, morally bankrupt, and totally manipulative.

But if this is what they are planning to do it could well backfire. Even a regular JEP reader with internet access might be curious enough to want to dig a little deeper and can find a wealth of information on the blogs.

Anonymous said...

the corporate sole stems from the mid 1800s when corporations gained the legal title of persons, clever lawyers ran with that and now corporations are also classed as individuals, since then corporations have acquired many of the rights inherent to people whilst peoples rights have been diminished.

In commercial law ILM and Lewis are the same person ie. home affairs minister, not that it justifies ILMs' sneaky weasel words, he (ILM) has always been a company man willing to put the 'states' before the people

The States of Jersey was incorporated in 1892, it is a proper corporation

Fascism is defined as government by corporation.

cyril

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

"A significant smokescreen and distraction in the form of fanning the flames of public outcry at the outrageous golden handshake given to Bill Ogley for example, and then attempting to steer public opinion away from the real corruption and cover up that has occurred.

Or maybe I'm just being too cynical and viewing the oligarchs as absolutely corrupt, morally bankrupt, and totally manipulative."

No - you're not being too cynical.

That's precisely what the oligarhcy and their spin-doctors are doing.

And it isn't just Ogley they're using as a decoy. It's walker too.

Whilst he is one of the key guilty parties - who was instrumental in the whole cover-ups - and he most certainly must be investigated and brought to account - even he has a certain convenient function for the oligarhcy - in that he is no longer a States member - and he, personally can be handily vilified - whilst people continue to miss the real big problem.

The real heart of darkness.

That toxic core is the Crown function in Jersey - the Law Officers, the biased, bent judiciary - and the Office of Attorney General in particular.

And, of course, central in that toxic, corrupted apparatus is William Bailhache.

So, yes - Frank Walker - deeply unpopular - very easy to focus upon as a key villain of the piece - not least because he is.

But we mustn't be diverted.

Arraigned along with the likes of Walker - must be William Bailhache, the Law Officers Department - and the Crown.

Stuart

Ian Evans said...

PROTECTION FOR OGLEY

GeeGee said...

'Or maybe I'm just being too cynical and viewing the oligarchs as absolutely corrupt, morally bankrupt, and totally manipulative'.

Oh you can never be overly cynical where the oligarchs are concerned! After all this is the Jersey Way, the 'way' that instils cynicism in most of the decent public out there.

And yes as another commenter said Stuart Syvret was right after all. Well as a long time supporter of Stuarts, he has been right so many, many times and look where his honesty has got him. Honesty and transparency are not words that bode well in this Island.

Strange isn't it that those who take the higher posts in the Civil Service, the Police et al, always find someone to blame when it all gets to much. Bloggers, politicians are all guilty of heinous crimes of being open with the truth.

Frankly, if they could not stand the heat they should not have tried cooking in the Jersey kitchen.

Anonymous said...

or tried "cooking the books" in the kitchen.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

A reader says:

""but he is receiving advice from Law Offices"

He has to seek advice but he does not have to follow it!!"

That's an important observation.

Yes, any 'public authority' exercising its 'discretionary powers', should take appropriate advice in respect of its decisions. And if they failed to take the appropriate advice - and not necessarily just legal advice either - then an aggrieved party would be very well placed to challenge them in the courts. (Assuming a functioning, non-corrupted judiciary, of course.)

But - the question arises - what is "appropriate advice"?

Is it - for example - acceptable for a public authority to take advice from a source that is conflicted, contaminated, or excessively "influential" over that public authority?

No - it is not.

Both ECtHR case-law and English administrative case-law is absolutely clear and robust on this point.

Authorities have to adhere to, and deliver, what are termed "procedural safeguards" in respect of delivering and securing the rights of individuals.

Amongst such administrative procedural safeguards is a requirement to make "effective" inquiries; a corollary of which is that the decision-making process cannot be contaminated by conflicting interests.

Therefore, the question arises, was it lawful for the Home Affairs Minister to seek and take legal advice from the Law Officers' Department?

No.

Just like it hasn't been lawful for that conflicted Department to be advising so many other executive decisions.

By seeking - and by taking - legal advice from a source that is plainly structurally - and personally - conflicted - the Home Affairs Minister was "abdicating" and "fettering" the powers granted to that Minister as corporate sole by the law.

And a public authority cannot - lawfully - "abdicate" or "fetter" its powers.

SO - the Home Affairs Minister - legally expected to seek advice in respect of decisions? Yes.

But legally able to seek such advice from a manifestly conflicted source? No.

Thus, the Home Affairs Minister's decisions - when influenced by such contaminated advice as that from the Law Officers' Department - are unlawful.

The Minister has no legitimate power in law to act as he had done.

Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Rico, this is from the Guernsey Press.


Openness cannot be conditional
Wednesday 29th February 2012, 2:30PM GMT.

Tweet
ON ITS front page yesterday, our sister newspaper the Jersey Evening Post disclosed two things: the £500,000 ‘golden handshake’ given to speed the island’s former chief executive on his way and a pledge by the new chief minister that there would be a new era of transparency under his watch.

There are a number of points of interest for Guernsey in this.

The first is that bureaucrats in both islands can see nothing wrong in covering up how they spend public funds.

In the case of Bill Ogley’s payoff, it is only in the public domain because he agreed that it could be released. The cash pile given to a colleague still remains secret because he hasn’t responded to requests to go public.

The cynic might say so much for the Jersey chief minister’s new broom of transparency, but at least it is a start.

Zoompad said...

From: Barbara Richards

2 March 2012


Dear Staffordshire Police Authority,

In 2004 and 2005 Matt Tapp and his Talking Heads consultancy
company were employed by Staffordshire Police for a presentation on
the Soham investigation media strategy and for a table-top training
exercise.

In the light of recent events in Jersey, Channel Islands, regarding
Matt Tapp's involvement in the suspension of the Chief of Police
Graham Power, and the cover up of institutional child abuse, I am
very concerned about Matt Tapp's role as a media consultant in
Staffordshire Police.

I would like to know who was responsible for the employment of Matt
Tapp, and also I would like to know who attended the Soham
presentation and the table-top training exercise. I would also like
to see the agenda and any minutes of both these exercises.

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Richards

My FOI request

Anonymous said...

Not a single question in the States next week on the Graham Power suspension or Haut de la Garenne. Whats going on?

Anonymous said...

Surely there should be a question on Tuesday along the lines of:

Its been a year now since Senator Le Gresley got a unnanamous vote for a commmittee of enquiry, for child abuse, while in the care of The States of Jersey.

Please explain the hold up Chief Minister Gorst.

Anonymous said...

YOU HAVE NOT PUBLISHED THIS E-MAIL ON YOUR BLOG YET. WHY? BILL OGLEY SHOULD BE INFORMED, YOU ARE TELLING A LOT OF PEOPLE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED AND LOADS OF PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THE COVER UP OF CHILD ABUSE. ARE THE POLICE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING?

"And price for Covering-up Child Abuse and getting rid of a Chief of Police . Wake up and take a look outside. this is why myself and others are asking the questions. Why was he paid this money when he should have been sacked? Simple, he could have brought down a Government.

What an Island, what a government what a disgarce.And the Home Affairs Minister is still left trying to defend it all

Rico Sorda"

rico sorda said...

"YOU HAVE NOT PUBLISHED THIS E-MAIL ON YOUR BLOG YET. WHY? BILL OGLEY SHOULD BE INFORMED, YOU ARE TELLING A LOT OF PEOPLE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SACKED AND LOADS OF PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THE COVER UP OF CHILD ABUSE. ARE THE POLICE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING?"

You are correct. I publish my emails when I'm ready. BO should have been sacked simple as that. My next posting, which should be up this weekend, will be looking at the disastrous relationship between BO and Frank Walker. These two cretins should be jailed for what they have done.

And what of Pollard? How much is the going rate in Jersey for manslaughter? We know how much covering up child abuse and suspending a Chief of Police is but what about manslaughter?

This Island is sick

We have given two OBE's to two filthy lying cretins.

Terry Le Suer might be a nice guy to people who know him but so fukcing what. He is a liar. That is a proved evidenced fact.

You go to the police you moron. Take it MI5 or MI6 in fact take it to bridge like the late great James Brown did. I don't give two twatting hoots. My island is decaying in toxicity like none other. Old bloody pervs who think its their given right to molest children - then rely on a nipple tweak and a two finger handshake to keep it covered up.

You go to Barbados and look for BO in that big twatting house drinking an even bigger twatting cocktail whilst pollard is sitting on the sun lounger playing some stinking Kula Shaker on his guitar like some fukcing guru of suburbia. Go on you moron.

The irony of it all will be lost on you.

Tell him that Rico thinks he's a cretin and should be behind bars and tell that pollard his fecking guitar is out of tune.

I have no doubt by night time they will be sniffing the finest- the most purist - colombian angel dust from the crack of you as* whilst you just lie there and whistle dixie.

So off you go


Ciao for now

rs

Anonymous said...

way to go Rico,tell it to them straight I am right behind you.
remember
honesty,truth,integrity

rico sorda said...

"So many accusations yet so little substance. Just for your information, your e-mails get sent to other people generally with the words 'what an ars*hole' written on them. If you want to make a public spectacle out of yourself in front of the media and all states members then just carry on sending these stupid e-mails and you already have some collection."

I having a guilty pleasure moment so publishing the nonsence comments I'm getting. Please be assured they make me laugh. I mean, how can you not help but laugh.

The scary part is that you're friends are putting

"what an are*hole"

The irony of that is probably lost on you.

Backs to the walls boys. The pervs are on the march.

Guilty Pleasure over

rs

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of reasons why Pollard will not agree to having his criminal pay out exposed.

One very good reason is because his wife was made a job at the States of Jersey Human Resources Dept., she has no skills in relation to this job, and the sad thing is she is still there!

Anonymous said...

http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/46049.html

Notes of CLA meeting Royal Hotel 11/02/09

An informative blog posting concerning Mr. Pollard ends with the paragraph below.

But what really infuriates me is this. People at this very senior level justify very high salaries on the basis they have huge responsibility. And yet we see in this meeting at almost every opportunity Mr Pollard used words to imply it wasn't him , he wasn't there, it was handled by some obscure unit he is barely connected to. If it isn't you Mr Pollard, who is running this very large and expensive department, and just who is responsible, and what are they being paid?



Notes of CLA meeting Royal Hotel 11/02/09

Anonymous said...

One thing i like about your blogging Rico is that you are literate enough to express yourself without resorting to 'bad' laguage. So your post of March 3, 2012 9:19 AM did not impress me.Before you reply that your not here to impress me,let me say that i WANT to be impressed.

Zoompad said...

"I also agree that Mr.S.Syvret has been extremely helpful to the JCLA but as mentioned members have been advised not to have contact with him because he has an alternative agenda for helping them, unreal"

If it wasn't for Stuart they would have covered up the HDLG abuse years ago. Sturt did for the HDLG victims what Richard Wise tried to do for the Staffordshire Pindown victims. Sadly, Richard is gone, if he hadn't died he would never have let me be tortured in the secret family courts.

Zoompad said...

"So your post of March 3, 2012 9:19 AM did not impress me"

You have to admit this much though, the corrupt individuals who have colluded to trash the HDLG investigation would try the patience of a saint. And even Jesus snapped out some harsh words at times, so much was the provacation of the Pharasees and lawyers.

Anonymous said...

All thes e-mails you send, there are loads and you really should consider seeing a shrink. Why don't you ever copy in your employers or the Attorney General or even Crime Stoppers into them seeing as you are so sure of yourself? I do not believe you work at Romerils, that firm would not be dumb enough to employ you.

Anonymous said...

If Mr Ogley had a contract with the states employment board in 2005Why was this original contract ammended and then signed by Mr. Le Sueur and Mr Walker under P & R sub panel?

Surely the original contract in 2005 was the one States employment board were liable to adhere to.

Who could Mr. Ogley sue for breaking contract if States employment board not part of the ammendment?

Anonymous said...

"All thes e-mails you send, there are loads and you really should consider seeing a shrink. Why don't you ever copy in your employers or the Attorney General or even Crime Stoppers into them seeing as you are so sure of yourself? I do not believe you work at Romerils, that firm would not be dumb enough to employ you."

Why is it such a big deal to you where someone works or doesnt work? Why not let us all know where you work seeing as your so fixated on someone elses place of work.

Whats so funny about posting about where someone may or may not work is that it shows your lack of any intelligent response to any comments or blog posts put up by the author. Or, perhaps it says something else, that you are desperate to stop truth.

In my opinion though it just states the obvious, that you are an unintelligent dingbat that harbours a grudge that you just simply wont let go of. Grow up mauvie as it is pathetic.

Personally, I think Rico is doing a great job and practically every Jersey born person knows that our government is corrupt in more cases than just the abuse saga. You know that too I guess so get a grip on your life and grow up.

I suppose the big question is just what have our government done for you to get all het up about this blog?

Anonymous said...

Rico, it never ceases to amaze me how many people who just don't care about what you right, or do not believe it, or wish to talk about where someone works or not, are still so, so bothered they cannot help posting such drivel. In my opinion, not only are they bothered but perhaps its right in their face bothered!!!