Sunday, April 14, 2013





The case of jailed former Magistrate, Ian Christmas, has bugged me for some time now. On 5th October 2012 Ian Christmas  was jailed for 15 months for defrauding an elderly woman out of £100,000.  He was originally arrested in June 2008.  It has taken 4 long years to come to court.

He received his full pay during this time, which came to about £500,000.  He never resigned from his post and could only be removed by order of the Queen after a disciplinary investigation by a UK judge. This man never had a problem receiving his pay whilst suspended from duty awaiting trial.  Even after he was found guilty he never resigned from post , so why did he suddenly resign from his post on the 18th January 2013? Was it because his salary was stopped on the 16th October 2012. Lets have a little look at his timeline. I find his Appeal process a little puzzling. Why resign if you are on Appeal and believe yourself to be innocent? Like I say, this case just bugs me.

June 2008 

Former Magistrate Designate Ian Christmas has his court chambers raided by the Police. He is suspended from duty on full pay.

26th July 2012

Former Magistrate Ian Christmas is found guilty of one case of fraud. He has been on full pay during this period. This amounts to £500,000. He has not resigned from office during this time. Even now, after being found guilty, Ian Christmas does not resign from his position as magistrate.

25th September 2012

The JEP report that Ian Christmas could now face a disciplinary investigation to see if he should remain in office. I take it that they are referring to an investigation carried out by a UK Judge

5th October 2012

Former Magistrate Ian Christmas is sentenced to 15 months for defrauding an elderly women out of £100.000 pounds.  He still does not resign from his position as magistrate. He lodges an Appeal straight away. He proclaims he is innocent. 

16th October 2012 

The Bailiff, Michael Birt, states that the salary of Ian Christmas was stopped on the 16th October 2012

18th January 2013 

Just as his Appeal for conviction gets under way Ian Christmas finally resigns as Magistrate Designate. "WHY?"  Why has he resigned now? What if he gets off on Appeal? Would he not be able to take up his old post as Magistrate as an innocent man? Why resign at the beginning of an Appeal process when he has not bothered doing so in the past 4 years? Has a deal been struck?

Even his Appeal is bugging me. He has been ordered that he must repay the £100,000 back to the elderly women he defrauded, but that is only if his Appeal is unsuccessful. Ok, he would be innocent, then no need to pay the women back.  Why did he resign his post? Then we have the three judges who are sitting on his Appeal come out with a "Don't rush us on this" statement on the 27th February 2013:

This is from Channelonline:

"Three judges have retired to consider whether or not a disgraced former Jersey judge should have been jailed for fraud."

Ian Christmas and three others were found guilty last year for the parts they played in a property con.

The Court of Appeal hearing has now come to an end after weeks of legal arguments.

It is not known when the verdict will be handed down, but the court has taken the unusual step of announcing it does not want to rush its decision.

A statement on behalf of Sir John Nutting QC, Christopher Nugee QC and Richard Collas - the three judges who have been hearing the appeal - says they wish to ensure all matters are fully deliberated.

Christmas was jailed for 15 months.

Three others, John Lewis, James Cameron and Russell Foot were each sent down for four and a half years.

Central to the case was whether islanders were conned out of their life savings by a property investment business they operated." End

How long does it take?  "Don't Rush Us." We are into April now and still no sign of a verdict. It is bugging me. Is he going to walk with some time served nonsense. By resigning his post did he make life a little easier for the Jersey Judiciary by not having to involve the Queen and a UK judge? Just what is going on here? He made £500,000 out of this. He was still working during those 4 years only not as a magistrate. Is he going to win his Appeal? He must think so.

Here are some links to some good pieces on the subject by Channel ITV and Gary Burgess.

This is also a very good posting on the subject. 

I have asked Senator Ian Le Marquand for background information on the legal situation regarding Ian Christmas, the Magistrate jailed for fraud.

He has been happy to give permission for me to make his reply public, with the proviso (that I am happy to place here) as follows:

"you can make my response public provided that you make it clear that I am not a Justice Minister but have need dealing with responses on behalf of the Chief Minister because of my knowledge of the legal and constitutional issues."

I would like to thank him for making this information public.

To put our exchange in context, this was my email asking for clarification of what he had said on BBC Radio Jersey, as I had missed the interview:

I missed hearing you on the radio the other day about arrangements over the Crown Officers, and wonder if you could fill me in on what you said, and what you are proposing.

Obviously this has to do with Mr Christmas, and while I think that it is proper he should receive a salary while suspended before sentencing, it seems inequitable if he receives one after he has been found guilty. After all, a pensioner who is sent to prison will (as I understand it) cease to receive his pension once sent there.

I understand Mr Christmas is appealing, but if the appeal fails, then he will have been paid for the interim period with, apparently, no means for redeeming that back by the States of Jersey. This again does not seem equitable. It would surely be fairer for him to not be paid until his appeal is heard, or paid into a kind of escrow account, and paid a backlog if successful. That way, he does not lose out, but if still guilty as charged, the State does not lose either.

The mechanisms for removing Mr Christmas from office also seem exceedingly protracted. At what point - when sentenced to prison - when failing on appeal - is he removed from office? It seems that there should a point, certainly if his appeal fails, where removal from office becomes automatic.  I'm taking the appeal as the end point, because I think it is important that justice is also given to Mr Christmas as fairly as possible (unlike, perhaps, the media); on the other hand, if the appeal fails, given the time he has already been paid - including time in prison, there is surely no justice in him being continued to be paid from that point on. 

Lastly, should there be a code of conduct and/or register of interests for magistrates? It appears that Mr Christmas was in effect using his office as magistrate to engender trust in a private business venture, and surely magistrates should not use their office as a kind of marketing endorsement? A magistrate is a position (I hope) of respect in the community, and I'm not sure they should engage in private schemes of the kind cited in Mr Christmas case, or if they do, shouldn't that be transparent with a register of judiciary interests?

This was his reply, which makes the situation very clear:

Tony, Mr. Christmas is a public office holder and the terms of his tenure of office are set out in the 1864 law on the Juge d'Instruction. There is no provision for his suspension from office and he can only be dismissed by the Privy Council upon petition by the Superior Number of the Royal Court. The Superior Number is the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff and all 12 Jurats who are usually assisted by the Attorney General, the Judicial Greffier and the Viscount.

There was a Press Release dated 25th September which explained the procedure which was being followed on behalf of the Royal Court, namely, a disciplinary investigation by a UK judge. 

In my view, Mr. Christmas ought to have resigned at the point at which it became clear that he could not return to his former role. In my view that was when he was formally charged although some may think that he should have resigned earlier and you appear to think that he should have resigned when convicted. 

In an ideal world, we would have in place a procedure by virtue of which a judge could be removed from office once there was such a public loss of confidence in the judge as to render it impossible for the judge to return. However, that is not without its difficulties. It is an important constitutional principle in a democracy that we have an independent judiciary. That is partly because the Government itself will be a party to court cases and partly as a safeguard against corruption. That therefore requires that a judge cannot be removed for political reasons. That in turn make the loss of public confidence test a difficult one to determine objectively. 

It is my view that there now needs to be a review of the disciplinary arrangements for judges



Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist 


Anonymous said...

This case has stank from the very start Rico. They never usually hang one of their own out to dry so why did they hang Christmas out?

Anonymous said...

My best guess is that he was given three months notice that his contract was being terminated, which, if the notice was given on 16 October 2012, would mean that the contract would end on 16 January 2013. However there were a few days slippage to allow for postage etc.. He chose to resign a day or two before the contract ended, so that he could say that he resigned his post rather than that he was dismissed. Even if his appeal is successful, the standard of proof for an employment disciplinary action is balance of probabilities rather than the beyond all reasonable doubt for a criminal action. Therefore he would have negligible chance of successfully arguing that he had been unfairly dismissed. This is pure speculation on my part and may be completely incorrect.

Anonymous said...

You have to wonder if the written judgement will be made public or kept secret now Jersey is moving towards secret court cases!?

Anonymous said...

You ask why are these Judges taking so long? to milk the system of course.

Anonymous said...

The queen is a client of Nutting

Anonymous said...

For Christ's sake. Where the hell does his Christmas surname come from?

Anonymous said...

By all accounts Mr John Nutting QC does quite a bit of work for her Majesty the Queen.

Anonymous said...

Cases such as these always take a long time to compile and bring to Court.

rico sorda said...

I just get a feeling that not is all that it seems with this case. My feeling is that there is a lot more going on here. He has done 6 months into a 15 month sentence. The Appeal judges have taken 6 weeks and counting so come to a judgement. We won't be rushed they say. How long does it normally take?


Anonymous said...

Why did the investigation by the UK Judge not start at the time or very soon after the original arrest.

Parallel with his suspension and whilst he was still receiving full pay.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

Who would give him notice 3 month notice that his contract is being terminated. Would this happen after an investigation by a UK Judge and has this happened?

In Senator, Le Marquand's response to Tony is he saying there was a disciplinary investigation? Apparently there was a press release on the 25th September 2012 about this.


rico sorda said...

This mentions something about an Investigation. So, when was it completed? Was it completed?

This is the text from the above link:

A Jersey judge convicted of fraud is still being paid his full wage.

It is reported Ian Christmas earns around £115,000 a year.

The Bailiff's Chambers say that Mr Christmas is still getting the money because he has launched an Appeal.

In theory that means he could be cleared.

But, they say an investigation is being carried out into his conduct. That could see him stripped of his job.

Although he is still officially Magistrate Designate, he has not sat in court since 2008.

Together with three other co-defendents he was found guilty of 21 fraud charges totalling £1.5 million.

All four will be sentenced next week.

Anonymous said...

The clue may be in Le Marquand's account. Christmas may have acted inappropriately as a Magistrate by allowing the fact he was a Magistrate to be used in marketing the financial product. To advertise himself in that way may not have been illegal but may have justified his dismissal So if an inquiry came to that comclusion in September it would fit with him being given 3 months notice of dismissal in October. May of course be completely wrong explanation, but it is plausible.

Anonymous said...

Hansard 23/10/2012

Would it have anything to do with the Chief Ministers open mind to a review of the appointments process for Judges?

Senator P.M. Bailhache:

I made that observation because the judgment in the Deputy’s case was delivered on 10th May 2012 and since then, he has asked questions about Jurats on 15th May, 10th July, 17th July, 11th September, 25th September and a number of questions also during October. I draw the Deputy’s attention to paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members: “Elected Members should base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and public interest and resolve any conflict between the 2 at once and in favour of the public interest.” I see at the moment nothing untoward about the appointment process for Jurats. Any person is eligible providing he or she meets the criteria for appointment as a Jurat and can be proposed by a Member of this Assembly or any other Member of the Electoral Assembly. The Chief Minister has said in answer to a written question that his mind is not closed to a review of the appointment process for Judges. Indeed, work has been continuing since the second interim report of the Constitution Review Group by the Law Officers’ Department in that respect, but there is nothing untoward or unacceptable about the current process for the appointment of Jurats.

Anonymous said...

This report mentions the disciplinary investigation.

4th October 2012

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Good work Rico,

On the same subject but a different issue, it is reported that the ex Judge does not have the funds to pay the lady back. He says he cannot afford to pay.

Since when does a criminal sitting on assets worth a reported million tell the confiscation authority what to do.

Next question, should his appeal fail, when are the Vicount's department knocking on his door to sell the tv and anything else to get this victim's money paid back ?

Remember the police have a department of well stocked educated officers chasing Warren's assets, so it will stink if they ignore Christmas and the plight of his victims.

Anonymous said...

Yet another breathtaking quote above from Sen Bailhache. He really is a national treasure and should be mothballed immediately so that he doesn't decay. The jurats are appointed by the electoral college which consists of the Bailiff, jurats, the 12 constables, the elected States members, and members of the Jersey bar and solicitors of the Royal Court - hardly a true and fair representation of the body politic.

But is he in a position to criticise anyone about conflicts between public and private interest? Just what were the real circumstances that led him to resign his post as Bailiff? Did he jump before he was pushed? For he seems to be obsessed with tackling UK authorities that interfere with Jersey. His latest foray with the Archbishop of Canterbury seems particularly muddled and over involved.

From my understanding Christmas case he claims to have been a sleeping partner and unaware of the fraudulent activities. I await the results of the appeal with great interest.

Anonymous said...

Sleeping Partner? that would depend on if he was just a shareholder or if he was a Director.
A Director cannot be classed as a sleeping partner as they have a legal responsibility to do due diligence i.e. to know what is going on.

Anonymous said...

Yes lots of interesting questions in this case and personally very worrying because knowing the man it is very difficult to comment critically. The dilemma is a real one and the conflicts that arise in such a small community are difficult to avoid - espcially when dealing with a tiny legal profession with fingers in every pie.
Also interesting from an historic point of view is that the 1860s law under which the Magistrate is appointed derives from protests made by Abraham Le Cras with others against the corrupt and conflicted judicial system in the 19th century and the reforms only came about after he petitioned the Privy Council....
Nothing really changes does it?
I recently posted a blog on about looking for Le Cras' grave who like Thomas Gruchy from Trinity (who led the 1769 revolution and overthrow of the corrupt Royal Court) - is also largely forgotten and ignored now. All good reasons to be out and about on 28 September this year on Jersey Reform Day to celebrate the past and to embrace a better future...Mike Dun writes

Anonymous said...

Code of conduct for members of the Judiciary of Jersey

“WHEREAS the Jersey Judicial Association was established on 12 July 2004 and is composed of
all those exercising judicial functions in the Island of Jersey;

AND WHEREAS the Bailiff and Jurats of the Royal Court have from time immemorial set
standards of judicial probity for the Island’s judiciary governed foremost by conscience and a
faithful regard to their Oaths of Office, they now acknowledge that it is desirable to lay such
standards down in writing;

NOW, therefore, the Jersey Judicial Association has, with the approval of the Bailiff, adopted the
following Code of Ethics and Conduct for all members of the judiciary in Jersey”.

1. Members of the judiciary shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and perform their duties with competence, diligence and dedication.

2. Members of the judiciary shall decide cases assigned to them within a reasonable time, according to the means and resources placed at their disposal by the Government of Jersey and to the volume of work assigned to them. They are to ensure that justice is done by giving each party a fair hearing according to law.

3. In order to be able competently to perform their respective judicial functions, members of the judiciary shall, within the limits of the means and resources that the Government of Jersey places at their disposal, keep themselves informed regarding developments in legal and judicial matters affecting their particular functions.

4. Members of the judiciary shall carry out their duties with dignity, courtesy and humanity. Furthermore, they are to ensure as far as practicable that good order and decorum are maintained in the courtroom where they preside and that every person conducts himself accordingly in court.

5. Members of the judiciary shall at all times show respect towards their colleagues, and particularly towards the judgments they pronounce.

6. Members of the judiciary have every right to administer their personal assets and property in the manner most beneficial to them. However, they shall not engage in any activity which is in its very nature incompatible with the office they hold.

7. (a) Members of the judiciary shall not exercise any profession, business or trade which conflicts with their judicial obligations.
(b) Members of the judiciary shall not hold any office or post, even though of a temporary, voluntary or honorary nature, and may not perform any activity, which, in the opinion of the Bailiff, may compromise or prejudice their independence or the performance of their duties or functions.

8. Members of the judiciary have a right to their private life. However, in this context, members of the judiciary are to ensure that their conduct is consistent with their office and that it does not tarnish their personal integrity and dignity, which are indispensable for the performance of their duties.

Anonymous said...

9. Members of the judiciary shall not join any political organisation, association or body, nor one which, by reason of its nature or purpose, could conflict with judicial independence or impartiality; nor shall members of the judiciary participate, provide financial assistance or show support for any such organisation, association or body.

10. Members of the judiciary shall not, while out of court, discuss cases that are pending in court. Members of the judiciary should discourage persons from discussing, in their presence, cases that are sub judice.

11. Members of the judiciary shall carry out their duties according to the dictates of their conscience, objectively and without fear, favour or partiality, and in keeping with the laws and customs of the Island. They shall decide cases objectively and solely on their legal and factual merits.

12. Members of the judiciary shall conduct themselves, both in court and outside court, in such a manner as not to put in doubt their independence and impartiality or the independence and impartiality of the office which they hold.

13. Members of the judiciary shall not disclose to others the content of discussions between members of the court when reaching a decision in a case.

14. Members of the judiciary shall not give evidence as character witnesses for any person, particularly if the said person stands accused of a crime, unless compelled by law or in cases involving relatives, and in other cases after having consulted with and obtained the approval of the Bailiff. Official notepaper should not be used other than for official purposes.

15. Members of the judiciary shall not sit in a case where they have a financial or other interest or where the circumstances are such that a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the given facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the member was biased: in all other cases they are bound not to abstain from their duty to sit.

16. Members of the judiciary shall not accept any gifts, favour or benefit which might possibly influence them in the proper fulfilment of their judicial duties or which might give an impression of improper conduct.

17. Members of the judiciary shall not comment or grant interviews to the media or speak in public on matters which are sub judice. In general, members of the judiciary shall not seek publicity or the approval of the public or the media.
18. Members of the judiciary shall notify the Bailiff if they are convicted of any criminal offence, whether in the Island or elsewhere, other than an offence involving speeding or unlawful parking.

19. If any member of the judiciary is in doubt whether his or her conduct might be contrary to any provisions of this Code, he or she should consult the Bailiff so as to secure a ruling in advance in relation to that proposed conduct.

17 July 2007

Anonymous said...

a freind of mine has just been relesed from la moye he says christmas is not in there he went for appeal and never came back.he heard when he was in there christmas was about to bring down the whole jersey empire with information only he knew

Anonymous said...

To the above comment: Christmas is most definitely in La Moye.

There is definitely more to this case than meets the eye. I have heard that he wanted to stop punishing people (specifically young) from ridiculously petty things involving drugs and alcohol and to get them help instead, this idea was rejected. His name also appears on an e-mail to do with Nurse M, so I do wonder if there is something going on there.

He was also not suspended from all of his duties..just actually appearing in court, but I think it was Richard Falle who told him to stop coming in at all.

The appeal result should be in this week, so guess we'll see then.

Personally, I believe that the whole case has been a farce, but the reasons as to why I do not know. His name doesn't seem to appear on anything to do with any past corruption on anything I've seen, so it would seem he is not really 'one of them'. I have also heard he was fairly vocal about things going on at Greenfields.

GeeGee said...

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, I have encountered Mr Christmas a couple of times, and he appeared to be a very pleasant man.

I know he was supportive of the rehabilitation of those addicted to drugs and alcohol, so he can't be all bad.

Will the truth ever out? I hope so, but ever the cynic.

rico sorda said...

The above is a good piece by Gary Burgess.

This is to do with the Appeal. I quote from the above piece:

Gary Burgess reports.

The appeal of a disgraced former Jersey judge and three other men is into its 5th day at the Royal Court.

Ian Christmas, together with John Lewis, James Cameron and Russell Foot, were last year jailed for the parts they played in a property con in which islanders lost their life savings.

Today Advocate Timothy Hanson, representing Cameron, argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial.

He said the original offences of committing an oral or written misrepresentation must have caused those duped to have invested in the property scheme, whereas he claimed the Crown's case was that those misrepresentations could come after people had put their money in.

Advocate Hanson also criticised the way the original trial judge summed up the case.

At that point Sir John Nutting QC, the presiding judge in the appeal, said if he hadn't summed up in the way he did, "he'd be leaving a socking great lacuna in his directions, wouldn't he?"

The appeal was due to end today but will now continue on 25 and 26 February.

Christmas was jailed for 15 months, the other men for 4 and a half years each. All are appealing their convictions. End.

rico sorda said...

This is a fascinating little quote. It's from Advocate Tim Hanson:

Today Advocate Timothy Hanson, representing Cameron, argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial.

He said the original offences of committing an oral or written misrepresentation must have caused those duped to have invested in the property scheme, whereas he claimed the Crown's case was that those misrepresentations could come after people had put their money in.

Advocate Hanson also criticised the way the original trial judge summed up the case.

At that point Sir John Nutting QC, the presiding judge in the appeal, said if he hadn't summed up in the way he did, "he'd be leaving a socking great lacuna in his directions, wouldn't he?"

Im just looking at what Timothy Hanson says. Plus look at the answer given by Sir John Nutting - answering a question with a question?

Could the answer to this whole affair be in this little piece.

"He said the original offences of committing an oral or written misrepresentation must have caused those duped to have invested in the property scheme, whereas he claimed the Crown's case was that those misrepresentations could come after people had put their money in."

Anonymous said...

Tim Hanson argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial? Didn't something similar happen in the Stuart Syvret trial?

Ian Evans said...

The Archbishop ignores...."THE JERSEY WAY"

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, one of your readers says:

"Tim Hanson argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial? Didn't something similar happen in the Stuart Syvret trial?"

That's precisely what happened.

Not once - but several times over.

As the transcripts prove - the original case amounted to - "Syvret is not allowed to say such nasty, critical things about my wonderful friend Michael Birt!"

Then - after a bit more thought - it evolved into, "Syvret is not allowed to say the 1999 investigation was crap!"

Then - after some more thought - it evolved into, "well, the burden-of-proof is on Syvret, to the-balance-of-probabilities, to show 1999 investigation was crap!"

Then - when I and my expert witness did just that - and annihilated the credibility of 1999 investigation - the case against me became - "err - well - um - well - um - err - well, look! Even though the relevant statute-law says you can name individuals for public-interest disclosure - because obviously all investigative and public interest journalism would be impossible if you couldn't - we don't care about that! This is Jersey! And you're just a piece of scum! SCUM!!!! Who the hell do you think you are! Daring - the damn, bloody nerve - just some uppity wretched prole -daring - to criticise the conduct of Mrs Windsor's Privateers, Michael Birt and William Bailhache!!!!

So - I was actually prevented from running any defence - at all - in the prosecution against me.

But - again, as the transcripts prove - the prosecution was fully allowed to base its case - entirely - upon the very issues I had been prevented from running because they were, supposedly, "not relevant or admissible".

Well - Mrs Windsor - I hope your judge who advises you - and who is now doing the Ian Christmas case - has a good understanding of the case-law on vicarious liability.


Zoompad said...

"Tim Hanson argued the Crown had changed their case in the middle of the original trial? Didn't something similar happen in the Stuart Syvret trial? "

It was David Hanson that Lord Falconer passed me on to when I kept writing to him about the Secret Family Courts and Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager, and how I was being persecuted in the Secret Family Courts for 7 years. David Hanson basically told me that there was no problem with the Secret Family Courts using a syndrome that a paedophile (Richard Gardner) had invented.

Is David Hanson related in any way to Tim Hanson, because they are both cover uppers?

The way Stuart was treated was the same way the Secret Family Courts are run, its as if the Mad Hatter is in charge of the trial proceedings and the goalposts keep moving every time you try to defend yourself, it made me very ill and I am still not well because of it, and dont know if I ever will be.

Ian Evans said...

Stuart, the Queen is untouchable as she retains a small right called "Sovereign Immunity".

Anonymous said...

With regard to whether the Crown changed its case during the trial against Syvret, well you can make your own mind up.

These are the issues of the case as stated by the prosecution lawyer at the beginning of the trial in July 2009 -

" was plainly not necessary to publish this report in order to prevent crime. The report was 10 years old and there was no evidence whatsoever that Mr. X****** had done anything in the meantime. There was no evidence for the police to consider and crime is not prevented by the making of alarmist and partial disclosures to the world at large, it’s rather dealt with by reporting matters to the police, and as an aside I add that putting all this information out into the public may have made any future prosecution difficult if not impossible. The Crown will submit at trial that it was plainly not justified in the public interest either, again the allegation was 10 years old, the report was 10 years old. Mr. Syvret had had the report for 4 years on his own account and nothing had changed in that period, it was an old story. There was no need to name or identify witnesses in order to make his point. Doing so posed great risk to those named. There was no public interest in that happening. And he did not find out from the police or other authorities why the investigation was in fact dropped, and instead states without evidence that it was dropped for improper reasons without being investigated. The public interest in the privacy of the individuals counts against disclosure, as does the need for the maintenance of confidentiality of preliminary police reports like this. The public interest can only lie in good faith and accurate disclosure and this publication was very misleading indeed, and it may well be that the real motive was in fact to attack Mr. Birt, it having just been announced that he was to be appointed Bailiff. So those are the issues which the Court is going to have to wrestle with at trial. The Crown submit that it’s a serious breach of the Data Protection Law. Our rights to free speech bring with them responsibilities only to make disclosures which are lawful. "

And three months later as stated by the same prosecution lawyer the case now become based on a single issue which was raised for the first time

"the issue in this case is what the reasonable man would’ve done before naming the nurse if the reasonable man ever would have named the nurse, "

Anonymous said...

" well you can make your own mind up. "

The above post argues the point on irrelevance. Where were the section/s relating to Mr Syvret being told he could not use the evidence that they had initially accepted?.

Anonymous said...

Where is the part which explains Mr Syvret was also prevented from cross examining the witnesses!?

Anonymous said...

So, the prosecution say.

Unfortunately Mr Syvret was prevented from defending his claim

Anonymous said...

Its hard to comprehend how Syvret has kept so composed, considering what he has encounted over the last six years.

Well and truly alive and kicking is the phrase required for him.

Much to the complete disappointment of the ones who were desperate to take him out. the

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

The comment left above, at April 16th - 10:30 a.m - is perfectly clear and correct, as far as it goes. A great deal more that could be said, is omitted.

But in respect of the key point being made by the comment - thus - "And three months later as stated by the same prosecution lawyer the case now become based on a single issue which was raised for the first time" - it's a case of QED.

The prosecution case was "Syvret should not have published report".

When that case collapsed for the manifest absurdity it was - the prosecution case changed utterly - to, "well - it was OK to publish report - but not to name names."

A position that was - equally - absurd and wholly incompatible with democracy and journalism.

But - you know - let us not be diverted by such facts - as dramatic and damning as they are.

The real scandal is even more basic - startlingly oppressive - and ultra vires:

1: The entire legal action against me was unlawful - and could never be anything other than unlawful - because the charging & prosecution decision was made by an utterly conflicted, centrally "interested" Office holder, William Bailhache.

2: The judge, Bridget Shaw, was - expressly - a directly and centrally conflicted party herself - it thus being wholly unlawful for her to be involved - at all.

3: The Crown prosecution function unlawfully interceded with the UK NMC - an unambiguous conspiracy to pervert justice - and then lied about having done so - in court.

As the transcript shows.

But - even those three points - as damning and as inescapably terminal as they are - do not approach the seriousness of the fact - that all of that was done in the name of - with the authority of - the power of - and the knowledge of - The Crown.

And to address the point made by Ian Evans above - concerning Sovereign Immunity - the remedy is a suit for "declaration" against the UK Attorney General.

And there is Petition of Right.

Hell - if the collection of grifters of the City of London Corporation can rely upon ancient, feudal mechanisms - then so can we.


Anonymous said...

What actually happens in trials is the prosecution and defence approach the Judge who decides what can and cannot be used in the trial. For instance if the prosecution says he stole a bike at the age of twelve we want to use that as evidence the Judge may so NO.

The defence may put the case of another obscure and far related incident the Judge says no goes through this procedure and then the trial begins. Get the idea.

In Syvrets case this pre evidence trial had been done and dusted nothing new.

The problem comes when he wants to present his witnesses later in the trial, and other evidence.

This is when it gets very strange because the Judge asks the prosecution Attorney if this is ok he says no, and months of defence work is now deemed inadmissible to Syvret by the judge.

How can that be?

Not being a legalise, but someone who believes in justice being blind, how can you take out the defence on the advice of the prosecution the whole defence case, after the rules have been set ? This is my understanding after following the story of the ex Senator.

rico sorda said...

Could it be that Ian Christmas wasn't going to be the brainwashed establishment stooge that they thought he was going to be? They then think about getting in Bridgit Shaw who will do as they say. Makes sense to me. Any thoughts?

Anonymous said...

I have heard from a few people who appeared before Christmas that he seemed to be fair,It would be interesting to see his conviction rate as opposed to Shaw's

Zoompad said...

"Its hard to comprehend how Syvret has kept so composed, considering what he has encounted over the last six years."

Some of us are praying, for courage and for strength, to cope with, and overcome the persecution of ourselves and our friends. Sometimes thats all we can do.

Some of the ones who persecute us pretend to be Christian folk, they go to their churches, but they don't believe, they just use the power and authority of the Church to make themselves above suspicion. But some of us child abuse victims and whistleblowers actually do believe in the risen Lord Jesus, who never harmed anyone, and warned those who harmed children that it would be better to tie a millstone round their neck and drown themselves than to harm the soul of a child.

We keep strong by faith, God help us, it's been a hard hard struggle for us, for me personally a 40 year battle to clear my name from the "Lolita" libel that has blighted my life!

Ian Evans said...

"I have heard from a few people who appeared before Christmas that he seemed to be fair,It would be interesting to see his conviction rate as opposed to Shaw's"

I have been up in front of Ian Christmas and he is a lot more understanding than the other muppets. I am wondering if he got to the point that ex magistrate David Trott got to, whereby he was just sick to the back teeth of the injustice he was forced by government, to inflict on innocent people who he knew were innocent....

I have heard recently from a good source that Christmas, was indeed fitted up. Rico knows about this and, I am sure, will be blogging about it very soon.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Christmas has been "stitched up".

He has been found guilty of defrauding an old dear out of £100k.

IMO for once justice has been served. The rule of law actually applied.

But Rico is right, why now? Why Christmas? A prominent member of Jersey's elite. Something does smell fishy, he has rubbed someone up the wrong way for sure.

And as for demands for him to pay "compensation" of £100k back to the old lady....poppycock! He would just be paying back what he defrauded her from. If he was made to pay any interest she may of lost or a set amount for her inconvenience, then that would be classed as "compensation".

rico sorda said...

Hi Ian, I wil be doing more postings on this. It is hard to find out what really went on without having sat in court and listened to the evidence.


thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Speech of Senator Maclean, tells us the commission have given us a load of Cr*p. no one could of but it better & we weren't expecting this to come for him!

You & your readers can Listen HERE


Ian Evans said...

The hypocrisy of...."McNALLY & WESTMINSTER"

Anonymous said...

Why don't you conclude some of your previous posts before moving onto any others?
What I have noticed is that you start a story but never seem to finish it or least we hear nothing about it elsewhere.

Ian Evans said...

The Dita Paverniece....COVER UP

rico sorda said...

Disgraced judge Ian Christmas has lost his appeal against his conviction and sentence for the part he played in a multi million pound property con.

Passing judgement, Jersey's Court of Appeal said if anything Ian Christmas's sentence of 15 months was 'on the lenient side'.

And that James Cameron's sentence of four and a half years, which he claimed was unduly harsh, was 'not too long by so much as a single day'.

I was reminded the other day about how Standard Charter Bank apparently defrauded a man out of £100,000 pounds and how the lady who did it didn't end up in court. The whole story can be read here.

So, what is the difference? Why wasn't any action taken against SC Bank? The Police were informed. Or is it a case of look how we deal with the rouges but we dare not touch the banks because it just wouldn't look good.

His co-defendants, ex financial advisers Russell Foot, John Lewis and James Cameron, also lost their appeals.

rico sorda said...

This is from the above link:

"Good day, I was wondering if anyone could recommend a lawyer who could help me with a fraud case against Standard Chartered Jersey Ltd? The senior financial advisor at SCJL called me in May 2008 and told me that SCJL were putting together an investment product that they,SCJL, were going to launch and which they, SCJL, would be the principals. The product would invest in European banks, be 100% protected, have no exposure to US financial institutions and could be sold easily whenever we wanted, it was called the "SCJL European Banking Recovery Note". We declined. A few days later she called back urging me to reconsider this 100% protected product as time was short and it was an excellent opportunity, "just sign last page and send it back and I will do the rest" For some reason I agreed. In Sept 2008 I was advised by the same woman that she had instead given all our money to Lehman in US for a completely different product with a different name, no protection and no market to sell it and that it (Stg100,000) was lost. SCJL refuse to do anything. Jersey Financial Services do not want to upset SCJL and say that the advisors string of lies was "a persuasave approach" and that the telephone calls and e-mail and summary sheet dont matter; Jersey police say they only take direction from Jersey Financial Services and so will not prosecute. We have recordings of the telephone presentations which are all lies and the e-mail stating no US exposure. Any help will be welcomed as this was our retirement funds."
George Burrow

Anonymous said...

"Passing judgement, Jersey's Court of Appeal said if anything Ian Christmas's sentence of 15 months was 'on the lenient side'.

And that James Cameron's sentence of four and a half years, which he claimed was unduly harsh, was 'not too long by so much as a single day'."

Hang on. Isn't this a judgement from the "disgraced, discredited, corrupt and decadent" Jersey Judicial system?

Just how many standards do you want in play at the same time?

voiceforchildren said...



Anonymous said...

Will be interested to read any further postings on this.

Something that bugs me is that when the men were found guilty, they were instructed in court to be no more than 15 from the court for an entire week and at some point they would be called as soon as a verdict was reached. Yet, when they were informed they were (according to my source) in the vicinity of the magistrate's court, so arrived within 5 minutes. The court was already full. So how did these 'victims' know to be there on that day at that time? Or were they informed first? I know this may be quite petty, but surely it shows what a show the police/courts wanted to make of this?

According to the evidence, Christmas never even met that woman, so how he 'defrauded', I will never know!

Anonymous said...

Appeal Court judgement (long, have not read it all)

Anonymous said...

I can't believe what I'm reading in these posts. You claim to stand for unearthing corruption in Jersey, yet reading your posts it seems that your whole 'understanding' of this particular case stems from the coverage from CITV and the JEP. Unbelievable.

The questions you should be asking are:

Who would ultimately benefit from Mr C's removal as magistrate?
Who is in a position to orchestrate and direct such?
Who did not want a forward thinking, compassionate man, concerned with helping people as the Island's magistrate?

Considering that Mr Christmas was the police legal advisor for many years before magistrate, he will have been a party to many, many of the Good and the Greats dirty little secrets. Just who has he upset?

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon,

I posted this on April 17th.

Like I say, without being in court it's very hard to find out what really went on. But we will try.

"Hi Ian, I wil be doing more postings on this. It is hard to find out what really went on without having sat in court and listened to the evidence."


Darius Pearce said...

The big point you are missing out on here Rico (in both Christmas and Syvret case) is that once the state initiates proceedings against a person they have left themselves liable to pay both costs and damages.

Once the JEP reported the fact that Christmas had been charged there is an undoable destruction of any future which he might have as a judge.

The damages therefore would run probably into millions.

Once a person has been imprisoned then damages really start clocking up.

There simply is no way that the States of Jersey will allow the appeal.

Also appeals do not decide whether or not the court of first hearing reached the right conclusion but rather whether the process employed was lawful (unless the verdict was completely ludicrous).

So as long as all the evidence relied on was presented and no new evidence is available, and as long as the procedures of the Court was followed correctly the appeal court cannot overturn the verdict.

It is only what happens at the actual trial and not what happened at the earlier stages (charging, disclosure, pre-trial directions) is relevant to the appeal.

If Christmas wins his appeal or any subsequent appeal he may make then the States of Jersey are in for one huge bill for damages and compensation.

Anyway having read the judgement linked above if I were a juror then there is clearly sufficient doubt for me not to be able to find him guilty.

Anonymous said...

I have some 'news' for some of the above posters.

Mr Christmas was not found guilty of 'defrauding' an old lady out of £100k.

He was found guilty of "inducing an investment by way of a reckless statement" Which is rather strange, seeing as Mr Christmas met the 'victim' for the first and only time 18 months after she had invested the money. As for the reckless statement, the prosecution couldn't, and haven't to this day, been able to show or say what the 'reckless statement was.

So there we have two very interesting FACTS, and believe me, when I say that there are many, many more I exaggerate not. As with the Curtis Warren case, due legal process has been sidelined and run roughshod. This shows, yet again, that what the powers-that-be want, they get.

So one must ask: When we look back at the many States members, civil servants, lawyers, business people, etc, etc and a whole host of shady business dealings, under-the-table pay offs and the like, just WHO is it that Mr Christmas has upset?