Wednesday, January 30, 2013







Yesterday in the States we had another awful session of Questions without answers. But I want to keep concentrating on the Data Protetcion led Super-Injunction against Stuart Syvret. It's getting very difficult to get any information on this - even in written questions to the Attorney General.

This is the latest offering: 

In responding to my question as to how much taxpayers' money had been spent and/or allocated in support of the so-called 'super-injunction’ case being brought by four private individuals under the Data Protection Law, the Assistant Chief Minister stated that he could not answer as the this was sub-judice. Will the Attorney General clarify 
  • 1)  that this does indeed apply to revelation of monies/costs even though they have nothing to do actual facts of the case; 
  • 2)  provide the exact wording of this ruling; 
  • 3)  outline when the Crown/Law Officers were engaged in support of the case? 

  1. It is a matter for the Chief Minister, as for any States Member, as to how he or she answers a question in the Assembly. The term “sub judice” means “under judicial consideration” and embodies a rule that governs what public statements can be made about ongoing legal proceedings and, generally, prevents States Members (and indeed anyone else) from discussing matters awaiting or under adjudication in the courts. The Attorney General is unable to express any view on whether or not the matter is in fact “sub judice”. 
  2. The question does not make it clear what “ruling” it refers to and the Attorney General is therefore unable to answer it, even were it appropriate to do so; 
  3. The Attorney General assumes that the expression “Crown/Law Officers” refers to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and, in this instance, the Law Officers’ Department. Neither the Law Officers nor anyone else in the Law Officers’ Department have been engaged to provide advice or support in any case which the Attorney General believes may be referred to in the question.

This is getting very interesting. Who is paying for all this Data Protection/ Legal Work? The 4 complainants? Who is paying for Advocate Baker to represent these 4 individuals? It can't be legal aide? Something just doesn't look right here. Nothing shows up on the Data Protection Annual Reports. So, is the a privately led Super-Injunction? 

How did the 4 individuals become a collective? Maybe it was better having a 'Kitty' like a friday night on the Stella in town? Better to share costs.

And who could forget this farce from the 15/01/2013

4.13 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the cost of supporting four individuals bringing actions under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, relating to the Internet:
Will the Chief Minister clarify how much taxpayers’ money has thus far been spent in support of the 4 individuals bringing action on to the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 relating to the internet?
Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):
Could I ask my Assistant Minister, Senator Routier, who acts as political liaison with the Data Protection Commissioner, to answer this?
Senator P.F. Routier (Assistant Chief Minister - rapporteur):
As has already been confirmed in previous answers, there are proceedings that are ongoing.  Therefore not only would further discussion be sub judice, there is an order in place that all hearings in relation to this matter are held in private until a further order of the court and that no party may disclose information to any one party.  At this point in time, while matters are ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment on any fees incurred.
4.13.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
The Attorney General in the past said there was a limited amount of taxpayers’ money that would be available in such cases.  Can the Assistant Minister at least confirm to the House a figure that is the ultimate that can be used from the taxpayers’ purse and who is monitoring this because I think that is very important to the public?
Senator P.F. Routier:
Every year in the accounts of the Data Protection Office, there is an amount set aside for the running of their department.  They keep within that budget and that is publicly known.  I do not have the figure with me here today but it is a figure which has been advised to this House in the past.
4.13.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
Sorry to push that but from what the Assistant Minister is saying, he is suggesting that it is entirely down to the Data Protection Commissioner’s discretion.  Do I understand that correctly?
Senator P.F  Routier:
The Data Protection Commissioner is an independent person who has responsibility for the budget and as long as they keep within the budget, we should be satisfied.
4.13.3 Deputy G.P. Southern:
The Assistant Minister has just said that we should be satisfied.  If he expands that to “we” in this Chamber concerning public spending, can he justify in some way his linking of the sum spent on this case with an injunction that says we cannot talk about the proceedings?  Surely there is no link between the amount spent and the actual proceedings going on.  How can he justify not informing Members how much public money has been spent on this particular case to date?
Senator P.F. Routier:
In the opening answer, I did say that the court has put an order in place to not talk about any matters in relation to these cases so we are bound by that.
4.13.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:
Is the phrase used in the document in front of him “matters relating to these cases” in which case possibly one might justify not talking about how much has been spent.  Is that the actual wording and, if not, will he tell us what the wording is because I cannot believe it encompasses the amount spent by the States on pursuing these cases?
Senator P.F. Routier:
I do not have the court order in front of me.  I can certainly look at that to see what the court has decided but my understanding is that the whole relates to everything relating to the case.
4.13.5 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Assistant Minister tell us whether the person who is on the receiving end of the Data Protection’s action receiving equality of arms?  Are they also being funded by the States or is it just the 4 individuals who are bringing the action?
Senator P.F. Routier:
I have no knowledge of the cases at all so I cannot answer that.
4.13.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Do you believe the person should receive equality of arms?
Senator P.F. Routier:
I have no knowledge of the cases at all so I cannot comment on that at all.
4.13.7 Deputy M. Tadier:
It seems that the Assistant Minister has been chosen to answer the question specifically because he does not have any knowledge about any answers that he can give which is convenient because we are not allowed any information on the question which has been approved by yourself, Sir, but I am sure it is more complicated than that.  The question I have to ask is: is the Assistant Minister concerned that taxpayers’ money is being used for a case which ostensibly could or which could possibly use the defamation law because this is a case about defamation, not necessarily about data protection, which would not have to be funded by the taxpayer.  Does the Assistant Minister have any concerns that taxpayers are being used to fund a secret case which we cannot even find out what the costs are at the moment when perhaps the best use of procedure would be for a civil defamation case to be brought against this individual so that taxpayers would not have to fund it.
Senator P.F. Routier:
The Deputy’s understanding of what cases are going on is greater than mine.  It is not part of the responsibility of the Chief Minister or myself to be involved in any particular cases and I would respectfully suggest to Members that when there are cases which are sub judice, that politicians should not really think about being involved in it and I maintain that position and as long as the Data Protection Officers are working appropriately within the law, that we should be satisfied with that.
4.13.8 Deputy G.P. Southern:
If I may, can I ask the Assistant Minister to circulate the documents he has not brought with him today, the 2 items that he has mentioned in his answer?
Senator P.F. Routier:
I am not sure what the Deputy is referring to.  All I have is an answer to the question that …
Deputy G.P. Southern:
I refer to the wording of the injunction from the court and the sum allocated to data protection issues within the budget, both of which he mentioned and said: “I do not have them with me.”  Can he circulate them before day’s end?
Senator P.F. Routier:
The Data Protection Office budget is publicly known.  It is available to anybody.  Regarding the court’s order, I presume that would be on the court’s website if there is such a thing.  I cannot find it.
4.13.9 Deputy G.P. Southern:
Effectively, he has not answered the question and said he is not prepared to do anything to elicit the answers.  Can the Assistant Minister be more co-operative?
Senator P.F. Routier:
Certainly, I will have a look to see what can be provided but as I have said previously, these cases are sub judice but I will do whatever I can.
4.13.10 Deputy M. Tadier:
May I have a supplementary simply to be helpful?  I appreciate that this is a sub judice case so would the Assistant Minister make an undertaking to look into a policy area which relates to the use of defamation cases as opposed to the use of data protection law because they are fundamental issues which border on the right of freedom of speech versus the right to not be defamed and it is critical that there is not an abuse, first of all, of taxpayers’ money being spent or an abuse, potentially, of the wrong law being used when another law should be used.  Would the Assistant Minister undertake to take that away and discuss that?
Senator P.F. Routier:
In preparing to answer this question, I looked at Hansard when the Chief Minister answered a very similar line of question previously and it was suggested to Members that if they have a concern with the Data Protection Law, that they should consider bringing forward an amendment to that law.  I certainly do not have any concerns about the way it is currently being used but if other Members do, I would suggest that they bring an amendment to the Data Protection Law.
4.13.11 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
I am tempted to ask if you can apply retrospectively to use this law but what I will ask the Assistant Minister is: is he really happy and content that here we apparently have taxpayers’ money being used and yet no one in this Assembly is allowed to know how much is being spent, what that limit is effectively or who is monitoring it.  Is that a good way to handle taxpayers’ money?
Senator P.F. Routier:
We have put in place a system to provide protection to the public through the Data Protection Office and when it was established, it was established in a way that gave the authority and the backing to the Data Protection Officer to use the funds available to them wisely and I have no reason to believe that it is not happening in any of these cases and I maintain that we have sufficient protection for public funds because the Data Protection Officer is using the money within their existing budget.

A Super-Injunction has been enforced against former Health Minister/Senator, Stuart Syvret. It has been led by the Jersey Data Protection Office under Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins. We first became aware of this Super-Injunction when UK Politician & Liberal Democrat John Hemming mentioned it under Parliamentary Privilege in the House of Commons. This is what he said:

"There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

Something very fishy is going on here.

More questions need to be asked

Rico Sorda

Investigative Journalist (Part Time)

Thursday, January 24, 2013








A Super-Injunction has been enforced against former Health Minister/Senator, Stuart Syvret. It has been led by the Jersey Data Protection Office under Data Protection Commissioner Emma Martins. We first became aware of this Super-Injunction when UK Politician & Liberal Democrat John Hemming mentioned it under Parliamentary Privilege in the House of Commons. This is what he said:

"There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly."

I believe  the part of the Data Protection Law that is being used is Article 10 which is explained below by our Solicitor General, Howard Sharp QC. Where does Super-Injunction come into it? Why the secrecy? But it gets stranger as we will see. 

This is from the States of Jersey in December 2012

2.13 Deputy M. Tadier of H.M. Attorney General regarding the use of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog:

Will the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in this case, explain whether the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can be used, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog?  If so, how this is done?
Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:
Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice.  That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another.  The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request.  If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter.  Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice.  The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties.
2.13.1 Deputy M. Tadier:
Will the Solicitor General confirm whether or not personal data necessarily needs to be defamatory when displayed on a blog, or even in any other type of media, for it to be requested to be taken down or can it simply consist of personal information?  For example, somebody being named purely factually such as saying that Deputy Tadier is a Deputy in St. Brelade.  Could I request for that information to be taken down or would that be ridiculous?
The Solicitor General:
There is a threshold test which I did refer to in my first answer but I repeat now.  The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress to that individual.  That is the test.
2.13.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:
The Solicitor General referred to an order, I think it was 21 days, when people would have to remove it from a website.  Is there anything that limits that in regard to someone waiting 21 days, taking something offensive down and then putting it back up?  That certainly used to happen on a website attacking people, certainly States Members.  The website is now defunct, I believe.  Is there any way to combat that?
The Solicitor General:
It seems to me that if a controller of data is served with a notice requiring that controller to take down certain data and after the 21-day period at any point they continue to publish that data, the person who issues the notice is then entitled to go to court to seek enforcement.
2.13.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Yes, the Solicitor General has been talking about the right of individuals to take someone to court for ignoring the notice.  Could he explain the powers of the Data Protection Commissioner and explain when she would step into the place of individuals in taking someone to court?
The Solicitor General:
I would not ordinarily expect the Data Commissioner to step into the shoes of a particular individual.  The individual would sue in their own name, so to speak.  It is right to say that the Commissioner can in certain cases provide assistance to the person who is suing.
2.13.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Solicitor General tell us in what way can he or she give assistance?  Is it financial assistance in paying for the court or is it just advice?
The Solicitor General:
The Data Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual in a case where (a) there is an issue of general public importance that arises and (b) that a matter has a reasonable prospect of success.  As I say, in those particular circumstances, the Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual.
2.13.5 Deputy M. Tadier:
Would the Solicitor General care to comment on the comparison with the U.K. where I understand that certainly historically and up until recently, the Information Officer - the equivalent of our Data Protection Officer in Jersey - has been very reluctant to get involved with cases to do with defamation, where people have been perhaps defamed and it has been for the courts to step in.  Also, will the Solicitor General comment on when this practice, if it has become common or used in Jersey, came into place, and what is the line between an ordinary civil libel case?
The Solicitor General:
I think it is helpful to look at what was the purpose of the Data Protection Law introduced by States Members.  The purpose of the law, as I see it, is that it was designed to protect individuals from the misuse of their private information.  In particular, where that misuse results in substantial stress or harm, the law sees fit to give that individual a remedy.  So I do not see it necessarily at all being whether or not something could also fall into a defamation case.  In my view, the better view is the issue whether or not the Data Commissioner is discharging his or her duties properly and promoting the function of the law, which is to require data controllers to manage data in a responsible manner.

Why not clear you're name in open court. Why all the secrecy when no one will know what the end result was? Why do all this under a Super-Injunction? Who brought these 4 individuals together? Who is covering their costs? Looking at the Data Protection budget there isn't any spare funds. So how are they funding this? Are we, as taxpayers allowed to know?

This is my hunch on what is going on here. The Law Office, under the control of William Bailhache, still has a Vendetta against Stuart Syvret. They have gathered these 4 individuals  together and have tried to clamp down on Stuart Syvret's freedom of speech. I'm not saying what is right or wrong  concerning the contents of Stuart Syvret's blog site but just the actions coming from Data Protection and the Jersey law Office. There is no way that Emma Martins could have taken this on without some protection from somewhere concerning her budget. If I have got this wrong then I would appreciate some input in the comments section.

They have never forgiven Stuart Syvret, Graham Power and Lenny Harper for blowing the lid off this toxic little Island and along the way exposing a legal club that has been raking in some serious money over the decades via 7 Bedford Row.

The Annual Budget for Jersey Data Protection in 2011 is

Net Income = £330,100 

Total Operating expenses £355,019

Go to Appendix 2

Having looked at their out-goings for 2011 its all accounted for. It is a small budget. So how are they financing a Super-Injunction or is it the Jersey Law Office that is bringing this.

Now we come to the States of Jersey. I have linked the Blog Posting of Deputy Trevor Pitman who has blogged on this:

I want outside viewers to have a good listen to the Audio below. What we have here is an elected member of parliament trying to get an answer regarding the cost to the Jersey Taxpayer of the Data Protection led Super-Injunction. 

Jersey's Chief Minister didn't want to answer this question so instead got his Assistant Minister, Senator, Paul Routier to answer it. Because he knew he was dropping the Senator in the Poo he gave him an exquisite new title 'Political Liaison' with the Data Protection Office.

This is what Deputy Pitman says about the below Audio encounter:

"My question being put - quite appropriately - to the Chief Minister, Senator Gorst who then refers it to his Assistant Minister, Senator Paul Routier. Because... the Senator has apparently now become official 'Political Liaison' with the Data Protection Office.

Unfortuantly it soon transpires that the said Political Liaison clearly knows less about the issues at hand than Lance Armstrong probably does bout drug free cycling. But never mind - we can't talk about it anyway because it is all 'sub judice'. Oh, okay...

Only problem here is that despite this assurance further questioning reveals that whilst quite happy to give me this answer the Senator has... never even seen the details of the relevant Court Order upon which he has just based this assurance.

And, as I and my colleagues are seeking information about where your hard-earned cash is going - NOT any details of what is happening in the actual case is the Senator really quite sure about this claim? After all, if my information is correct such an interpretation would likely be a world first. Certainly an island one.

Remember - this is OUR money. Not cash belonging to any of the individuals bringing the case. I'm not even asking how much has been spent by any of the four individuals specifically. Nor am I asking for information as precisely for what this taxpayers' money has been paid out for!

Never mind...

The Senator further assures us that everything IS being handled appropriately and within the law. Fair enough - but once again how does he actually know? Turns out he doesn't. He can't. He hasn't seen any documents at all so is passing all of this off as fact based simply on trust!

Further good news comes when we are also assured that the costs (did I mention this is being met from YOUR taxes?) are being monitored by the Data Protection Commissioner and it is all within that Office's set budget for the year.

Okay, so I'm sounding a bit pedantic now. But yet again - how can the Senator be sure?

In fairness the Data Protection Office's budget certainly is posted up on their website; and very well set out and seemingly detailed it appears. But this worrying little thing remains: the budget isn't actually that big. Only around £300,000 or so - give or take a few Regulatory Breach fines coming in (perhaps for an e-mail incident or something?) And nowhere does the outlay for the case in question appear to be outlined.

But let's move on...

According to my information the costs to the taxpayer in this case started to build up as far back as 2010. So given that this is in essence a case revolving around claimed 'defamation' a reasonable guess would surely appear to be that this has already racked up quite significant costs. (Don't ask me how I know - I just DO!)

So how come, we ask the Assistant Minister, that he cannot even tell us what the limit of the available financial support (taxpayers' money - did I mention that?) from the Data Protection Office is?

To cut a long story short - you guessed it: the Assistant Minister with specific responsibility for this doesn't know. In fact he has, he let's slip, actually based all of this nonsense upon the Hansard report of a previous question asked of the Chief Minister! And anyway...we can't talk about it because it's all 'sub judice'.

So what have we all learnt at the end of this latest farce within States 'Questions without answers'? 

Not a lot. Apart from the fact that if you are looking for a spy to drop behind enemy lines. Someone who won't crack under questioning; even torture. Then forget James Bond. Forget John Rambo.

The man you want is 000 Senator Paul Routier. He won't tell the enemy ANYTHING. He doesn't KNOW anything! In a strange and slightly perverse way it almost makes you proud…" End

You really have to listen to the Audio. Is it  'Sub Judice' to ask how much  Data Protection are spending? Why doesn't the Minister know anything?

Play Dumb seems to be the way forward.




Listen to Senator Routier. 

The Outside world!!!! You now know what we are up against.

Rico Sorda 

Investigative Journalist 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013


Leah Mcgrath Goodman


Follows Success of Online Petition and Motion from Member of Parliament

NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 2013/PRNewswire/ – In the wake of the child-abuse scandal surrounding BBC presenter Jimmy Savile, the United Kingdom lifted its 500-day travel ban on American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman and restored her visa this past week, allowing her to complete an investigation into allegations of systemic child abuse in the UK and its territories.

As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, Goodman was banned after being detained and questioned by UK authorities in September 2011 about her research into allegations of horrific crimes against children at the orphanage Haut de la Garenne on the island of Jersey, a leading offshore tax shelter controlled by the British Crown. 

Amid fresh allegations about Savile’s predatory activities on the island of Jersey, Member of Parliament for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming filed a parliamentary motion in September 2012 protesting Goodman’s ban. “I am pleased that Leah now has her visa,” says Hemming. “They should not have banned her in the first place. She wished to investigate the story relating to Jimmy Savile and Haut de la Garenne before it became public. Clearly, her ban was part of the cover-up which should be investigated itself.” 

Trevor Pitman, a member of Jersey’s Parliament, initiated a petition in defense of Goodman in September on, signed by thousands. 

“I'm pleased our campaign has been successful,” says Pitman. “Leah's ban was politically motivated and symptomatic of a justice system that has been hijacked.”

Haut de la Garenne made international headlines in 2008, when Jersey police launched an investigation into nearly 200 complaints of alleged abuse, torture and murder at the children’s home. The investigation was abruptly halted in 2009 after the island’s Health Minister and Chief of Police were removed from their jobs under pressure to end the probe. 

Leah McGrath Goodman, a member of The London Speaker Bureau and contributor to Fortune plans to write a book on her findings. Her first book, “The Asylum: Inside the Rise and Ruin of the Global Oil Market,” will be released in paperback by HarperCollins this spring.

SOURCES: John Hemming, Trevor Pitman, Leah McGrath Goodman

For more information, visit:

Related links: 


Saturday, January 19, 2013


 Former Bailiff  Sir Philip Bailhache - Brother of William.  

Former Attorney General William Bailhache & Now Deputy Bailiff. When he is no longer in office - in my opinion - Jersey will become a better place

Simon Thomas - Independant? Read on







Jersey is nearing the end of its 'Feudal Reign' and the old guard know it. It is for this reason that Sir Philip Bailhache stood for Senator in 2011. He has been dropping grenades ever since being elected. He is Jersey's very own King Canute.  The establishment have been relentless in their cover-up after cover-up. They  forgot one very important factor, "The Jersey Disease"


Let me make this clear. The Feudal bloodline is near extinction. It has had a fantastic run. The current Attorney General, Tim Le Cocq is no Philip or William Bailhache. He is but a court jester to the main show being played out in front of him. And what of the Solicitor General, Howard Sharp? Is he of proud Jersey Feudal stock? Alas no. He is just a court Jester to the main show being played out in front of him. We have been under the Bailhache influence for a very long time. Sir Philip has been in the Jersey Law Office since 1975. He served as Solicitor General between (1975 -85) and Attorney General between (1986 - 93). He then became Deputy Bailiff in 1994 and became Bailiff in 1995 until leaving office in June 2009.

We have been in the grips of a Feudal Monarchy. 

 These 3 have been the real power in Jersey for some 40 years

Sir Philip Bailhache 

Sir Michael Birt  

William Bailhace 

The Child Abuse Cover-UP and all the dropped cases lie at their door. It lies at the stagnant door of the so called independent Lawyers called in by the then Attorney General William Bailhache.  We must take a very good look at these so called independent Lawyers and their connection to 
7 bedford row.  Like all regimes they have surrounded themselves with yes men and fear. No Jersey Lawyer will dare make a stand against these two. There is perhaps one. Advocate Sinel. There will be more to come concerning Advocate Sinel over the coming weeks and months. These will appear on the excellent VFC and


The Jersey Law Office under the Bailhache brothers in my opinion is a toxic edifice. It has gone unchecked. It has been left to its own devices for far to long. I believe Jersey will become a better place, being able to breathe more freely and become more open and transparent when the Bailihache brothers are removed from any decision making and influence. Jersey must move away from the dark clouds that Operation Rectangle exposed. We must move forward. Away from the old guard, who like a washed up boxer doesn't know when to quit. Do we really need some so out of touch as Philip Bailhache going around the world as our Foreign Minister? No, we need someone forward thinking, energetic and based in the 21st Century.  

Now, remember all the dropped Child Abuse Cases from "Operation Rectangle?"

There were many. Remember how they were all independently assessed. Complete rubbish. It was a closed shop. The first thing that the then Attorney General, William Bailhache, did was call in the trusted inner circle of lawyers. These Lawyers all being Independent we were told. Now, if someone told me that independent lawyers were reviewing cases I would be thinking that they had no connection with Jersey and would have a good knowledge of child abuse cases. This is not the case. Every dropped case from Operation Rectangle now needs proper independent reviews. This must be done in an open and transparent way. The Lawyers must be free from influence and have no connection to Jersey.

I must return to a blog posting from former Senator Stuart Syvret. His "Letter from Exile 9" posting gave us a first look at the involvement of the Legal Chambers  "7 BEDFORD ROW".

 Look out for the names of Simon Thomas and Jonathan Bertram.  These two were independent lawyers working for the AG's office. Just look at their field of expertise. Nothing to do with Child Abuse. 

This is what Mr Syvret said: 

“7 Bedford Row”.

And, indeed, it’s a very impressive looking outfit – judging from their website.

Lots and lots of terribly learned individuals – with very impressive CV’s.

And some most fascinating case-work on those CVs.

But – oh dear, boys and girls - I fear you’ve grown far too used to keeping very bad company.

I dare say that 7 Bedford Row and its Partners and Associates – and it’s “Door tenants” (hello Stephen) – are all legal masterminds, but – alas – the law – and politics – are not always the same thing – and don’t always mix successfully.

I begin to wonder whether 7 Bedford Row might not have just found itself ‘on the wrong side’. (Look, I know there is no ‘wrong side’ from a lawyer’s perspective, as long as that side is paying, but work with me on this.)

Indeed , so much so, the very name ‘7 Bedford Row’ could go down in legal firm infamy.

Let us take a closer look – at these “independent” chambers – employed by the Jersey oligarchy – to provide “independent” “opinions” on whether to prosecute the child abusers.

A little brief research reveals the following.

7 Bedford Row have extremely close and sustained professional relationships with Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office.

Each year the outfit and/or its partners receive astronomical sums of money in fees from Jersey’s Law Officers’ department – thus destroying any pretence to objectivity and “independence” claimed for the chambers.

How old is the connection with 7 Bedford Row?

How close can you get?

Michael Birt worked at the partnership of 7 Bedford Row – and to this day can be seen regularly dinning (at tax-payers’ expense) with David Farrer, the present head of chambers at 7 Bedford Row.

Guess who else used to work at 7 Bedford Row?

Why – none other than my old friend, Stephen Baker – who left those chambers to take up a full-time post in – this is getting too easy isn’t it – Jersey’s AG’s office – until he had qualified as a Jersey Advocate, then he left, and founded his own practice – Baker Platt.

And – so “independent” are all these arrangements – that another former employee of the AG’s office – Cyril Whelan – left in 2006 – to go and work for – Baker Platt.

And – (you know, this is getting like Friends Reunited) – guess who – along with Mick Birt – played an instrumental role in abandoning the murder investigation of Nurse M – back in 1999?

You know?

When he was a Crown Advocate?

Why, Cyril Whelan, of course.

I’m sure Advocate Whelan has been able to advise Advocate Baker most thoroughly in respect of the latter’s prosecution of me for exposing the serial killer, Nurse M.

I’m sure such a learned fellow as Advocate Whelan must remember aspects of the investigation, some of which are so startling, one couldn’t, surely, forget? 

Back to our “independent” extended family of lawyers.

When Advocate Whelan left the Attorney General’s office – to go and work in Baker Platt in 2006, a new lawyer was brought in to replace him, one Howard Sharp.

Do we know where Mr. Sharp came from? Yes we do!

7 Bedford Row.

What may be a little less known is where Mr. Sharp is going – which is widely rumoured to be the post of Solicitor General – much to the annoyance of several Jersey lawyers.

I think we’ve established – quite categorically – that – in no way, shape or form – can 7 Bedford Row be credibly termed “independent” of the Jersey Attorney General’s Office.

A veritable Amazon-flow of fees – Jersey tax-payers money – goes to 7 Bedford Row each year – and those who tire of the - err – taxation environment of London appear to have ready-made career opportunities in Jersey – via an ever-welcoming door in the Attorney General’s Office.

But – our familiarisation with this legal fraternity has scarcely begun.

Another alumni of 7 Bedford Row is one Mathew Jowitt – who left those chambers to work in – Jersey’s AG’s Office. However, his time there had to be cut, unfortunately, short because of his role in the illegal aspects of the Curtis Warren case, which saw the AG’s office authorising illegal actions in France and Belgium.

Illegal actions Bill Bailhache was - oh so very neatly – able to blame the police for – even though his Office authorised it.

But, when a chap has to make a sacrifice – as Jowitt did – a chap must be rewarded – so he has been appointed Crown Advocate in an on-going prosecution – the investigations for which are under the control and oversight of - David Farrer and Anwar Nashashibi – both of - 7 Bedford Row.

In all seriousness – I pause at this point to ask readers – perhaps especially those who usually disagree with me – to consider rationally – and in all decency – whether - for one instant – the non-prosecution decisions concerning the child abuse cases can be regarded as safe and credible?

Even vaguely?

The so-called “independent” UK-based legal chambers – which have provided William Bailhache with the “opinions” and excuses he required to avoid prosecuting at least nineteen cases of child abuse – are – in fact – extraordinarily closely linked with the Jersey AG’s office – appear to be almost a part of the same “firm” – serve as a career ‘feeder’ into Jersey law - and gather what may well be millions of pounds in fees each year from Jersey tax-payers.

Fees that would not accrue – if the chambers – 7 Bedford Row – were to fall out of favour with the Jersey oligarchy.

And what appears to be the dramatic dependency of 7 Bedford Row upon fees received from Jersey does not stop at the cases I’ve referred to so far.

Let me just touch briefly upon a few further examples – quoted in Partners’ CVs on the web site of 7 Bedford Row.

Anwar Nashashibi: -

“Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to investigate a Kenyan public official for corruption and money laundering worth millions of pounds;”

“AG of Jersey v Michel and Gallichan. Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to investigate and prosecute a financial services provider for multi-million pound tax evasion and money laundering. This was Jersey’s most extensive, complex and high-profile prosecution for a financial crime;”

Conor Dufficy: -

“Conor has a broad international business experience from his prior career and has spent a large part of his career at the bar working on civil fraud and trust cases in Jersey.”

Craig Carr: -

“Craig specialises in civil and criminal fraud, financial crime and regulation. He is currently instructed in the largest criminal fraud in Jersey having previously been instructed in a multi jurisdictional commercial trust dispute.”

“AG of Jersey v Bhojwani: trial concerning allegations of laundering US$ 43.9 million through Jersey.”

David O'Mahony: -

“He has worked with Bakerplatt - our 7 Bedford Row Alliance partner - in a number of cases involving civil claims by foreign governments for the return of allegedly misappropriated monies and on a multimillion dollar constructive trust action involving the proceeds of a hedge fund.”

“Re Abacha: Responsible for day-to-day management of Jersey Attorney General's investigation into Abacha's money laundering. “AG of Jersey v Bagudu: (Abacha's chief money launderer), US$ 320 million prosecution, and appeared for the Attorney General for Jersey in extradition proceedings.”

Nicholas Dean QC: -

“Operation Tetley (2001- 2003): a Jersey based investigation into “commission” payments by defence contactors.”

Jonathan Bertram: -

“In 2008 he was instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey, via Baker Platt to act as junior counsel to assist in the preparation of and disclosure in the prosecutions arising from the Jersey Historic Abuse enquiry “Haut de la Garenne”.

He has experience of cases concerning allegations of breaches of financial regulations and allegations of fraud, primarily obtained from his occasional practice in Jersey with Baker Platt.”

Nigel Povoas: -

“In Jersey, he has advised on multi-jurisdictional financial issues and has been regularly instructed in an advisory capacity by the Attorney General of Jersey.”

David Farrer QC: -

“AG of Jersey v Michel & Gallichan [2001-2007]: a multi-million pound money laundering by a trust and corporate services provider.”

Steven Gray: -

“Durant International and others v Attorney General of Jersey [2006] - Instructed to assist the Attorney General of Jersey in judicial review proceedings regarding a decision to disclose information pursuant to letters of request from an overseas jurisdiction. The letters of request concerned alleged political corruption in the context of large-scale construction contracts. Attorney General successful at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.”

Simon Thomas: -

“Simon has also worked closely with Bakerplatt and the Attorney General’s department in Jersey where he has been involved in financial crime cases with an international element, again, both prosecuting and defending. Work in offshore financial centres comprises a significant part of Simon’s practice.”

Collingwood Thompson QC: -

“Recently, Collingwood has been advising the Attorney General of Jersey on two large scale corruption and money laundering cases. The first concerned the ex-mayor of Sao Paulo in Brazil and the second (which is on-going), relates to relatives and associates of the late general Abacha of Nigeria. Both cases involve sums in excess of $250 million.”

Tom Elmer: -

“Instructed by the Attorney General of Jersey to assist in the investigation of an international money laundering case.”

And so it goes on.

And if those links to the Barristers of 7 Bedford Row were not enough – consider what are termed the “Door tenants”.

Stephan Baker – the Advocate who has committed at least 4 straightforward acts of perjury in his prosecution of me. Ex-Bedford Row; ex-Jersey AG’s Office; now of Baker Platt.

Cyril Whelan – ex-Jersey AG’s Office – now Baker Platt.

Howard Sharp – ex-7 Bedford Row, presently Jersey AG’s Office, and widely tipped to become next Jersey Solicitor General, if the poor treatment meted out to the Jersey based applicants is any gauge.

To the best of my knowledge – you would be very, very hard-put to find any major legal case in Jersey from the last decade - in which 7 Bedford Row have not played a significant, or the major, role.

So this is the source of the soi disant “independent” legal advice and opinion – that the Jersey abuse survivors, the island’s population – and the world – are supposed to accept as credible grounds for not prosecuting nearly all the Jersey child abuse cases?

Cases that would have been immensely damaging and problematic for the Jersey oligarchy – and its leaders – such as Michael Birt and William Bailhache?

7 Bedford Row, as an entity, clearly has a stranglehold over the Jersey Law Officers’ department - and its Barristers are plainly drawing mind-boggling amounts of money from Jersey tax-payers for case-work – not to mention the, no doubt, huge fees or retainers paid to members of these chambers in an advisory role to the Jersey AG.

Just how many Jersey cases has 7 Bedford Row been involved in?

Over what period of time?

Who, as individual lawyers, have been involved?

What “advisory” services have been provided by members of these chambers?

What have been the individual case-fees?

What is the total sum of money to date – spent by Jersey tax-payers on employing the lawyers of 7 Bedford Row and associates?

What is the likely value of future “business” from Jersey?

Have all business transactions between the States of Jersey and 7 Bedford Row been fully compliant with the Public Finances Law?

Given the immense sums of money flowing from Jersey tax-payers to 7 Bedford Row and its various members – and the residency and career doorway into Jersey provided by the Attorney General’s Office – and the extremely cosy and mutually beneficial relationship with private practice in Jersey – such as that of Baker Platt – can the “work” of 7 Bedford Row be regarded as objective, impartial - and safe?

The answer to that last question is no – of course it cannot be regarded – for one instant – as safe.

Plainly – what has been unmasked here is a profoundly toxic and deeply unhealthy relationship.

A set of financial and personal conflicts of interest so brazen and extreme – every prosecution decision advised upon by anyone involved with 7 Bedford Row must now be discarded.

All of the cases reported by the police in the course of the historic child abuse investigation must be re-opened.

But – who could oversee and determine such a necessary exercise? Certainly no one involved with Jersey’s Law Officers’ department.

What we see evidenced above, represents nothing less than the stark reality of a breakdown in good governance, the rule of law and good administration of justice.

The very circumstances in which London has both the power – and the duty – to intervene.

But – for mystifying reasons – London always seems reluctant to do so.

Perhaps Whitehall retain 7 Bedford Row too?

And that’s not even a joke.

But – the circumstances for intervention could be far easier for London this time.Let’s face it – when your two most recent and senior Crown appointees in Jersey – Bailiff Michael Birt – and Deputy Bailiff William Bailhache – both have to announce their resignation during the coming weeks – it furnishes you with an ideal opportunity to finally clean the stables.

But – no matter that the Jersey oligarchs and their crooked regime will probably continue to enjoy the inexplicable and mind-boggling protections of London and the FACAWs – what cannot be protected any longer – because it is smashed forever – destroyed by citizen media – and our ability to share the evidence above – is the “reputation” of these clowns and their institutions.

Henceforward – there will be no hiding from, nor escaping the fact that whenever London supports and protects the Jersey oligarchy – actually – all that is being supported, in truth, is a small claque of self-interested, dangerous and frankly inadequate individuals – who are nothing more than a stain upon the good name of the Crown.

Serial killers – not prosecuted.

Child abusers – not prosecuted.

Concealers of child abuse – not prosecuted.

Criminal conspiracies against child protection – not prosecuted.

Corrupt civil servants – not prosecuted.

Bent judges and Crown Advocates – not prosecuted.

Criminal conspiracies by civil servants against democracy – not prosecuted.

The Jersey oligarchy – and its protectors: rotten, twisted, stagnant and decadent.

Given lawyers feature so heavily in this posting, it seems apposite to finish with some Latin:

Quod erat demonstrandum.


This will lead me into the next postings and the work of Simon Thomas. His role in the eventual dropping of Child Abuse Cases. There were many. An independent Lawyer, who when googling, you get this:

Practice Areas: Business Crime, Crime; Public and Regulatory Law
Simon is a criminal practitioner with particular experience in financial crime and fraud.
Business Crime
Prosecution and defence work in cases brought by Serious Fraud Office, CPS Casework Directorate and Attorney General of Jersey. Experienced in work with an international element.

Notable cases include:
  • prosecution junior in education grant fraud involving 18 defendants.
  • defence junior in large corruption case prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office;
  • prosecution junior in 6 handed fraudulent trading case involving vehicle brokerages
  • defence junior representing estate agent charged with substantial mortgage fraud;
  • prosecution junior on a series of prosecutions involving VAT fraud and related large scale car-ringing.
  • prosecution junior in six-month banking and property fraud case
  • Defence brief in mobile phone fraud, prosecuted by the Post Office and investigated by T-Mobile, involving charges under the Telecommunications Act 1984.
  • defended a bookkeeper charged with theft of around £40,000 from employer
  • prosecuted a bank employee charged with theft in excess of £40,000
Offshore work
AG of Jersey v. Christine and Ryan Bryce-Richards: directed a three-year investigation and subsequent prosecution instigated by the Attorney-General of Jersey which concerned the fraudulent conversion by a director and her husband of a trust company. This involved:
  • evidence gathering from overseas by way of Letters of Request for Mutual assistance and related appearances in the Princely Court of Liechtenstein;
  • closely working with forensic accountants and fraud investigators;
  • obtaining orders freezing assets overseas, in particular in the Republic of Ireland, Liechtenstein and the Isle of Man;
  • High Court appearances in London successfully resisting a challenge to the validity of an extra-jurisdictional arrest warrant;
  • obtaining the extradition of one defendant from Spain;
  • the application for the enforcement of a £3.5m confiscation order.
Simon has also advised in relation to the prosecution of trust company managers in Jersey. He is experienced in confiscation work, including cases where assets are frozen overseas. Simon has acted for individuals and trustees who have had assets frozen offshore.
Simon has also been instructed in numerous cases involving large-scale drugs importations into the Channel Islands, both on behalf of the prosecution and the defence.

Simon regularly prosecutes and defends in cases of homicide, violence, drugs offences and sexual offences including rape.
Notable cases include:
  • prosecution junior in murder case arising out of an incident following a So Solid Crew event
  • prosecution junior in case of serial rapist/sexual offender
  • prosecution junior in case of gross negligence manslaughter against a mechanic
  • prosecution junior in manslaughter case in which the defendant drove his children over a cliff
  • defence brief in 18 handed conspiracy to supply heroin/cannabis case
  • defended alleged drug dealer on an indictment including a substantial amount of money laundering offences
  • prosecuted police officer in case arising out of Operation Ore
  • acted for the prosecution in case referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Other criminal work
  • Regularly prosecutes animal welfare cases for the RSPCA
  • Experienced in defending cases brought by the Environment Agency
  • Has prosecuted on behalf of the Maritime Coastguard Agency in relation to the unsafe operation of ships
  • Has been instructed in Health and Safety and Trading Standards prosecutions
  • Undertakes advisory work on behalf of accountants and others in the regulated sector in relation to their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act
  • Experienced in attending police searches and advising on privileged material
The Robert Hamill Inquiry - Instructed as part of a team of criminal barristers to analyse many years of police investigation in to the death of Robert Hamill in Portadown, County Armagh in 1997.

Public & Regulatory Law
A general common law practitioner for seven years, with experience in the whole range of advocacy before the civil courts, Simon's civil practice now focuses on police law. Simon is instructed in actions against the police. He also regularly acts for the Metropolitan police in relation to:
  • cash seizures under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
  • applications for Sexual Offences Prevention Orders
  • applications for Football Banning Orders (part of a dedicated team retained throughout the World Cup and other international overseas matches)
  • applications for closure orders
Recent cases
  • R v. Doyle: defence junior representing senior partner of an accountancy firm charged with stealing millions of pounds worth of client funds
  • AG v. Blatchly and Adams: instructed for the defence in alleged £2.5m VAT fraud in the Isle of Man - prosecuted in Jersey. The case was dropped when the defence through forensic computer evidence raised serious issues over the integrity of certian key documents.
  • R v. Sturnham: prosecution junior in case of "single punch" manslaughter 
  • Re C Trust:instructed on behalf of trustees to obtain the release of trust funds effectively frozen in Jersey pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime legislation. The release of those funds was obtained
  • Environment Agency v. CW Ltd.: represented defendant company in prosecution alleging breach of regulations governing the export of recyclable waste
  • R v. Hall; R v. Morris: defence brief in two separate and substantial money-laundering cases
  • R v. F: represented defendant charged with arson in a case involving issues under s37 and s41 of the Mental Health Act 1983
  • Police v. MM: acted for Metropolitan Police in civil application for a Sexual Offences Prevention Order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  • Grade 4 prosecutor - Midland & South Eastern Circuits
  • CPS approved rape prosecutor
  • Criminal Bar Association (CBA)
  • Midland Circuit
  • South Eastern Circuit
Contact Simon Thomas
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7242 3555
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7242 2511


Simon Thomas was called to the English Bar in 1995 and has seventeen years’ courtroom experience.  He has appeared in Courts in England and Wales at all levels up to and including the Privy Council.  His specialism has been trial advocacy in the civil and criminal courts. 
Simon began working in Jersey in 2001 investigating money laundering allegations surrounding General Abacha, former dictator of Nigeria.  He went on to lead an investigation into trust company managers which lasted three years and spanned several jurisdictions, culminating in two successful prosecutions and substantial confiscation orders.

Simon’s association with Baker & Partners goes back to 2003 when Stephen Baker first established himself in independent practice.  He was instructed in the firm’s very first cases and has provided advice and assistance to Baker & Partners on a regular basis over the nine years that have followed.  As a result Simon has been involved in many of the major cases in Jersey over the last decade.  In July 2012 he accepted an offer to join the firm on a full-time basis.

In recent years his work on the Island has focussed on financial regulation.  He has represented senior directors of major financial institutions in relation to investigations by the Financial Services Commission.   He has also co-ordinated internal investigations within financial institutions where irregularities have been suspected.

Amongst Simon’s last cases in England before moving to Jersey was the defence of a director of two separate companies for conspiracy to defraud and also acting as independent counsel in the UK money laundering prosecutions involving James Ibori, a former state governor in Nigeria.

With many years’ experience in dealing with fraud and other serious crime (he was a Grade 4 prosecutor - the highest level awarded by the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK), Simon now concentrates on factually complicated matters which require careful analysis and tactical judgements.   He is currently working on a substantial piece of civil litigation involving a claim in respect of many millions of pounds of loans made and not recovered by an underlying company of a Jersey Trust.

Simon read law at Oxford University and was a tenant at 7 Bedford Row Chambers in London between 1997 and 2012.
For further information please contact

This is what former DCO Lenny Harper said of Simon Thomas and his role with "Operation Rectangle"

"Interesting to see Stuart, the comments alongside the name of Simon Thomas of those chambers. He was of course the “independent” and “very experienced in child abuse” lawyer appointed by the Attorney General to work alongside my team. Readers of this blog may recall the battle I had to fight as the AG wanted Mr Thomas placed in our Enquiry Office and to have access to all of our raw evidence and intelligence so that he could “make informed decisions at an early stage.” I resisted this by pointing out that he was a member of the same legal establishment against whom many of the complaints of cover up were directed. I pointed out that to place him in such a sensitive position with access to all information and intelligence that we received, would severely damage our credibility with victims and witnesses. Many, many, e mails are in existence detailing the efforts of the AG to over-rule me and to get Mr Thomas in our office as this “is the way the CPS operate in the UK.” Under severe pressure I had to agree to him having an office at Police Headquarters. We found it even then difficult to get hold of him as he seemed to spend much of his time in the UK. Certainly files, even simple ones, but most notably the Maguires, seemed to take an awful long time to be read and a decision given. (I was still waiting on the Maguires decision when I retired!) You may also recall that after he changed his mind about charging the couple who liked to hit children with cricket bats he and I had that conversation with me in Jersey, and him on the platform of a railway station in the UK. You will be aware that he denied any influence by the AG or any Jersey sources in the process which led to changing his mind. He seemed to suggest that he in fact had not changed his mind even though the couple were in custody and we had agreed to arrest only after getting his go ahead. I was warned that if I continued to repeat these matters his chambers would sue me. It was this decision which led to me issuing the Press Release in which I made it clear the decision to release the couple was against my wishes following which the AG demanded a report from me as to why I had issued the said Press Release. When I completed the report listing what I saw as the shortcomings in the service we had received from the Prosecuting Authorities and it found its way into the media, David Warcup instigated an investigation against you and I by Sussex Police under the Data Protection Act. (Whatever happened to that investigation?) Certainly, whilst I could see Mr Thomas’s obvious qualities, (particularly in Financial Crime investigations), wide experience in Child Abuse was not one of them.

Your comment about the AG being head of the Honorary Police may help explain to readers one other strange set of coincidences which I experienced and which I have related previously. In the five years before the Historic Abuse enquiry I was stopped by the HP on only one occasion. Shortly after the enquiry started I was stopped several times on spurious grounds. The ‘stops’ did not occur when I swopped to my wife’s car, but restarted when I reverted again to my own. On one occasion the person stopping me made an untrue and malicious allegation which the AG took no time in bringing to my attention and suggested I apologise and that I had damaged confidence in professional policing among the HP. When I supplied the true facts along with the details of the series of stops and followed it up with a letter and e mails making a formal complaint, all correspondence about the matter stopped. I still await the courtesy of a reply to any of the letters or e mails I sent to the AG about the matter." End

I believe all the cases need reviewing. It is imperative that this happens at a Committee of Enquiry.





Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist

Next Posting we look at two abuse cases that the Jersey Law Office catapulted out into the long grass.