Friday, July 5, 2013

P96/2006 - PROTECTING THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE FROM PROSECUTION

SENATOR-PHILIP BAILHACE -BAILIFF OF JERSEY IN 2006 

DEPUTY BAILIFF - WILLIAM BAILHACHE - ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 2006



"P96/2006"



"A LAST MINUTE AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE LAW OFFICERS"



THIS AMENDMENT/ LEGISLATION WAS PASSED THROUGH  THE STATES OF JERSEY IN SEPTEMBER 2006



ONLY A HANDFUL OF POLITICIANS REALISED IT'S  SIGNIFICANCE (NOTHING NEW THERE)



THE JERSEY LAWLESS OFFICE - THE REAL POWER IN TOWN - LED BY THE FEUDAL KINGS PHILIP & WILLIAM BAILHACHE 


Law Society president,Timothy Hanson, has today come out publicly about why allegations of professional misconduct by a lawyer employed by the States have been dropped. This is because the above legislation was passed in the States of Jersey. The Law Society, which is the governing body of lawyers who practise as Jersey advocates and solicitors, was unable to refer the complaint to a disciplinary committee because, under current legislation Law Officers are not required to join the society. Private practise lawyers can face disciplinary hearings and referral to the Royal Court.


Deputy Higgins has been raising these issues in the States of Jersey. When the hansard transcripts are published I will reproduce them here.


What I would like to show you  is how  important pieces of legislation are passed through the states with so little Scrutiny. It was happening in 2006 and it is still happening in 2013.


Former Senator Syvret was not missing a trick on this one. 


Take a look how then Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, helps get this piece of legislation through the chamber from his unelected seat. He makes a mini speech. 

The Bailiff:


"I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?"




Even though no checks were in place they passed it anyway. Nothing has changed. 


THE LAW OFFICE - THE UNTOUCHABLE REAL POWER IN TOWN



Will Chief Minister, Gorst do the right thing and bring this back to the house?


Rico Sorda 


Part Time Investigative Journalist



P.96/2006/
REPORT
The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 contains a requirement that Jersey advocates and solicitors in practice must join the Society. One consequence is that they may be liable to pay to the Society subscriptions and any levies that it may decide to impose. A second is that they must maintain adequate insurance cover in respect of professional liabilities arising from practice.
Although the Law does not explicitly exclude the Attorney General and the Solicitor General from the requirement, when discharging their public functions they are not considered to be practising as advocates or solicitors.
It is also considered that there are difficulties in applying the requirement to other Jersey advocates and solicitors who are employed in the Law Officers’ Department. They carry out their duties on behalf of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They are salaried public employees with less freedom of action than private practitioners to participate in the Society’s affairs. Moreover, the need for lawyers in private practice to maintain insurance cover for the protection of clients does not arise in the case of such employees.
The draft Law has no financial or manpower implications for the States.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 will, when brought into force by Act of the States, require the Minister in charge of a Projet de Loi to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Projet with the Convention rights (as defined by Article 1 of the Law). Although the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 is not yet in force, on 27th July 2006 the Chief Minister made the following statement before Second Reading of this Projet in the States Assembly –
In the view of the Chief Minister the provisions of the Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- are compatible with the Convention Rights.
page4image16824.png



10. Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- (P.96/2006)

The Bailiff:
We come now to Projet 96 - the Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- in the name of the Chief Minister. I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:
Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200-, a law to amend the Law Society of Jersey Law 2005. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.


10.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Hopefully this matter may be a little bit less controversial than the last one. This is a fairly simple adjustment which really deals with the anomaly of the members of the Law Society who happen to be Crown Officers or working in the Law Officers Department. The rules and regulations of members of the Law Society working in private practice are not really appropriate to those working in the Law Officers Department and this Law really puts that right by making certain conditions for those people in that category. That is the substance of the amendments and I propose the preamble.

The Bailiff:
Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the draft?

10.2 Senator S. Syvret:
I have some concerns about this and unless I receive a convincing explanation I will be forced to vote against it. It seems to me to exclude Jersey Advocates simply because they happen to be Crown Officers from the disciplinary structures and processes of the Law Society is wholly undesirable, given the absence of an alternative framework. Of course it is absolutely fair enough and it makes commonsense that they should not be required to pay themselves the annual subscription fees for the Jersey Law Society, nor indeed carry that kind of private sector professional indemnity insurance that is a requirement. Amending the Law to exclude them from those requirements, or perhaps for the State in some way to pay it for them, would be entirely acceptable but I am afraid removing the Law Officers, referred to by this Law, from the disciplinary structures and the general codes and so on that are required by the Jersey Law Society I regard as wholly unacceptable. I think the argument that they are Crown appointees is, I have to say, a very old fashioned argument and not really a particularly robust or convincing argument to put forward in the 21st century. I do believe that nobody should be above the Law and we regulate the practises of Advocates in Jersey through the Jersey Law Society Law and it seems to me that all Advocates practicing in Jersey, and that includes the Crown Officers, should also be subject to the same disciplinary and professional requirements laid down by the Society. Indeed the Society is empowered to have those requirements at Law. So, Sir, unless I receive a particularly convincing explanation I am going to vote against that particular provision and I urge other Members to do the same. In the 21st century we should not be exempting Crown Officers and Advocates working in the Crown Offices Department from the disciplinary structures required by the Jersey Law Society Law.

10.3 H.M. Solicitor General:
I wonder, Sir, if I might respond to the point about the disciplinary controls of the Law Society because I understand the Senator's concern and I can understand that Members as well may be concerned and I think that they should have an explanation of our concerns. The disciplinary controls, such as they are, at the moment - which can be either a complaint to the Bâttonier or a complaint to the Law Society - are generally a complaint by a client about the lawyer who has advised him and those are the most frequent complaints. Our clients are the States and their departments and if the States or any department are unhappy with the service given by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or any member of the department, the States can pursue that through the Chief Minister, through Human Resources or through whatever level is appropriate so that there is not the same need for the client to have a right of recourse to the Law Society. The second point is this; the Attorney General has a number of customary law and indeed statutory functions which increasingly include the inquiry into both locally, and assisting other jurisdictions, quite serious organised crime - frauds, drug trafficking and various other kinds of organised crime. Members will probably have seen in the paper the challenges which are frequently made by persons who are under investigation, here and in other jurisdictions, who have tried to challenge at every step the Attorney General when he has been seeking to assist in investigations into organised crime and into fraud. I am not disclosing anything confidential; there have recently been well-publicised and long drawn-out proceedings in relation to assistance that the Attorney General has been given to the authorities in Brazil who have been inquiring into some very serious alleged corruption and fraud offences. At every stage the lawyers acting for the persons under investigation have sought to impede the assistance that has been given. It would be a God-send, and one of the easiest ways in the world to handicap the Attorney General in this kind of thing, by making spurious complaints to the Law Society. The Law Society would then call upon the Attorney General or whichever lawyer was dealing with this to give a full account of what they were doing and it really would be extremely seriously detrimental to the work of the Attorney General in assisting other jurisdictions and indeed in work in this jurisdiction in the policing of quite serious crimes.

10.4 Deputy of St. Martin:
I can well remember asking questions of how long it was going to take for us to obtain this Law Society Law coming to be and that must have been some years ago and I gather this piece of legislation has taken a number of years to come to fruition. What surprises me really is having come to being that we are now asked to delete something. Maybe we could have an explanation as to why that was not taken into consideration at the time when the Law was drafted. The second question is just as a matter of interest; how much is the subscription to be a member of the Law Society?

Deputy P.N. Troy:
I wondered if I could ask the Solicitor General another question, as to whether this initiative is similarly enforced in other jurisdictions for their legal representatives for any jurisdiction?

H.M. Solicitor General:
I am afraid I cannot assist with the arrangements in other jurisdictions. It is not that I do not wish to assist, I simply do not know.

10.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
I did inquire of the Attorney General when this qualification came through and in part answer to the Deputy of St. Martin, Sir, apparently this was something that was overlooked. But I must admit when the Law did go through, as it went through the Legislation Committee over many, many decades, this was never an issue and this apparently did pop-up at the last minute. The only point, Sir, I would make in reference to the Solicitor General is of course if you have a particular assiduous policeman and he or she is very effective at countering crime and, talking in the nature of their work, they are the subject of an awful lot of complaints to trip them up of course. So, I do not think lawyers in that sense are very different. The other thing I would say, Sir, it is always a feature of professionals like doctors and lawyers that they seek self-regulation because they feel they are in the best position to judge the actions of their peers because of their knowledge of the field in which they work and in a way, Sir, it seems quite strange that the Solicitor General should aver that someone like Human Resources could well be put in the position of dealing with a discipline case against lawyers, whereas it strikes me they fought through the establishment of this particular disciplinary procedure. They have fought for the right to be judged by their peers, not to be judged, for example, by a Personnel Department so there seems a bit of inconsistency there.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:
Just a brief question for the Solicitor General, Sir. The Law Society of Jersey, if they were given leave to work outside of the Law Society, or not be members, if there was a genuine complaint, shall we say, to whom would they be answerable?


H.M. Solicitor General:
Does that mean a genuine complaint from a Member of the States or States Department about the service provided by the Law Officers or a complaint from a member of the public? I think the answer is probably different depending on who the complaint comes from. If there is a States entity who has a complaint about the conduct of the Law Officers - if it is a member of the department - that can be raised with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. If it is a complaint of course about one of us then it would, I think, have to be taken up politically.

10.6 Senator W. Kinnard:
I do hesitate to rise but as one of those who trawled through this law as a previous President of Legislation I am afraid I was not present if this was discussed at the Council of Ministers. I am just a little concerned that I do not think there has been sufficient thought from 2 points; if complaints are made against the police during the conduct of a criminal case this is dealt with after the criminal case has been concluded. I do have concerns that in this day and age of transparency that I still have concerns that it is not as clear to all of us here as to whether what we are suggesting is similar or different to other jurisdictions. My understanding is that all the lawyers for instance in England and Wales are subject to the restrictions and sanctions of the Law Society. I did send a note urging that we should perhaps delay this to have more research done as to what does go on elsewhere and to consider it further and I make that request again now today. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff:
I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?

10.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:
I feel confident that the advice that has been given to us by the Solicitor General and also by yourself and your contribution there, Sir - although very guarded in your advice - I think is that the States can take this on board and agree with it in the knowledge that there are avenues for complaints, should we wish to make them. At the moment I am completely happy with the situation that exists between our relationships, with not only the Law Officers but also your good offices, as States’ Members, who are accountable to the public, Sir. I believe quite strongly that if I have a view to take-up an issue on behalf of the public, as I do sometimes undertake to do, that I am given a fair crack of the whip in doing so and it is only my abilities or the lack of them that stop me from proceeding.

The Bailiff:
I call upon the Deputy Chief Minister to reply.

10.8 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I am grateful to the Solicitor General and indeed to yourself, Sir, for dealing with some of the points that have been raised during this debate probably in a better way than I could have done. In response to Senator Syvret, I simply add that nobody in the Island is above the Law. What we are dealing with here is the best way in dealing with a complaints procedure and it may well be that the situation is slightly different between that of the Crown Officers appointed by the Crown and those practising law within the Law Officers Department who indeed would be employees of the States working under the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But to the extent, Sir, that these are employees of the States, just like any other employees of the States, complaints should be made in the proper way and in a normal complaints procedure in respect of any States’ officer. As to the other comments that have been made from the Deputy of St. Martin, why was the amendment brought in so soon? I think because when one sees something is wrong one tries to put it right as soon as possible. One does not leave it in the wrong. He would like to know how much the subscription is. I am sorry, I did not come prepared with that one because I did not think the quantum of the subscription was particularly relevant to this amendment to the Law. If he is really interested I am sure we can find out for him. The question from Deputy Le Hérissier about whether self-regulation is suitable: I am not really sure what we are getting at there. In terms of complaints procedures I have said there is a formal complaints procedure in place and I will also deal with the comments of Deputy Lewis about any complaint from a member of the public. Senator Kinnard who thinks we should defer this, I think no, it is pretty straightforward. If the Senator is not happy that the Law, in its present form, is addressing the issue then the simply remedy is to vote against the principle of the Law, Sir. I maintain the principle of the law.

The Bailiff:
May I ask any Member who wishes to vote on the principles of the draft, who is in the precinct, to return to his or her seat. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

POUR: 34

CONTRE: 6

ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Senator S. Syvret


Senator P.F. Routier

Senator W. Kinnard


Senator M.E. Vibert

Deputy of St. Martin


Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren (S)


Senator T.J. Le Main

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)


Senator B.E. Shenton

Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)


Senator F.E. Cohen




Senator J.L. Perchard




Connétable of St. Saviour




Connétable of St. Mary




Connétable of St. Peter




Connétable of St. Clement




Connétable of St. Lawrence




Connétable of Grouville




Connétable of St. John




Connétable of St. Brelade




Connétable of St. Martin




Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)




Deputy A. Breckon (S)




Deputy J.J. Huet (H)




Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)




Deputy P.N. Troy (B)




Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B)




Deputy of St. Ouen




Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H)




Deputy of Grouville




Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)




Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H)




Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)




Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L)




Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)




Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (H)




Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)




Deputy of St. Mary








39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. That was quite a naked power grab. They simply arranged for the complete immunity of those who could best protect the Feudalist Mafia, and now they're free to do so by whatever means necessary. Is this just another on a long list of ECHR non-compliant features in Jersey for Stuart's case? He understood it then, even as they tried to sneak it through unnoticed. It seems like this law could have numerous profound implications.

Elle

Anonymous said...

They passed it just in time to get rid of Power and Syvret....

Without repercussions!?

Póló said...

@ Elle

Agreed.

Isn't it very interesting to look back on this in the light of subsequent events.

The implied element of trust in the régime has become very tarnished and it would be interesting to see the voting pattern on that piece of legislation were it to be introduced today.

It would probably still pass. We are still in mid journey on the road less travelled, but I suspect that a number of States' members have since woken up to what is going on.

Nice post Rico.

GeeGee said...

When I read this in last evening's JEP it was with disbelief, but really, should we surprised anymore.

'They' make up the laws as they go along, they make the rules to suit themselves, but this truly takes the proverbial.......

As ever Stuart was right all that time ago, as he has proved to be many, many times. Let us just hope and pray that Mike Higgins does not let this one drop.

As you so rightly say Elle, the implications could be enormous.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable

Not only were the concerns brushed aside with a casual swipe of the hand you then have the bailiff making a speech. The seeds were sown in 2006. The jersey law office was ready to cause unchecked, unregulated and lawlessness beyond reproach. You don't know how good you got it.

Bob Hill said...

Well done with the posting, I was one of the few that spoke and voted against the amendment, but one only has look at Paul Le Claire 's speech to see how naive and trusting most members were and unfortunately still are.

rico sorda said...

Here we have the classic move along please.

Deputy P.N. Troy:
I wondered if I could ask the Solicitor General another question, as to whether this initiative is similarly enforced in other jurisdictions for their legal representatives for any jurisdiction?

H.M. Solicitor General:
I am afraid I cannot assist with the arrangements in other jurisdictions. It is not that I do not wish to assist, I simply do not know.


Anonymous said...

The Power has always been between Bailiff and Legal System, once you establish this as you have, then it becomes extremely clear how people like Philip Bailhache, his best mate Birt and Philip's Brother William run this Island, the chosen few, simple. In fact so very simple! Now add Sir Philip as a politician to this equation and you have 'blast off'. Thankfully we did not see Philip get in as Chief Minister, no matter how much we don't like Gorst, Gorst has put a small stall on Philips chess move!

Anonymous said...

Interesting post Rico. There were three reasons given to explain the need for this amendment. The first was purely administrative – fees and indemnity insurance – and could easily have been dealt with without legislation.

The second was that the AG and SG are answerable to the Crown, and that complaints against them can be referred to the AG or the Governor, and complaints against law officers generally can be made to the AG, Chief Minister or States Human Resources(!). To which the obvious response is, so what? Almost all lawyers in Jersey practise as employees or partners of law firms, and anybody wishing to make a complaint against a lawyer has the option to complain to the firm’s managing partner. Indeed, this would be the normal route of complaint in the first instance. Why then does the existence of an alternative avenue of complaint excuse crown officers from law society investigations, but not lawyers in private practise? And, of course, were a person to make a complaint against the AG or SG at a ‘political’ level – say to the Chief Minister - how exactly is that dealt with? It will almost inevitably require investigation by a lawyer, so how will the chief Minister go about appointing one? Ask a Law Officer to investigate his or her boss or colleague?

The third excuse – sorry, reason – is totally incomprehensible to me. If I understand the SG’s argument correctly, a party to court proceedings could make a complaint to the Law Society against a Law Officer with the sole intention of delaying those proceedings. So how exactly would that work? Isn’t it the job of the presiding judge to ensure that the parties act lawfully, and any complaint about the behaviour of a lawyer involved in the proceedings would surely be made to the judge? Why would a complaint to the Law Society require a halt to, or delay in, live proceedings? Why would a complaint made to – say – the Lieutenant Governor or the Chief Minister, not involve a delay whereas one to the Law Society would?

The truth is, as we all know, that the AG’s office is a mini-empire that dearly wants to be accountable to no-one – except “the Crown”, and this measure was obviously intended to remove a chink in the armour of untouchability.

It’s splendidly ironic that the Bailiff could claim “They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments”. What a splendid fiction! How? How are they accountable in either a theoretical or a practical sense? No States department, employee or States Member has any ability whatsoever – in law or in practise - to hold the Crown Officers to account. Literally the only route for complaint is to the UK government or Privy Council: and good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear Philip Bailhahce is in China and this is all kicking off without him! Dear o dear!

Anonymous said...

Rico the blog is extremely informative on this subject and it's only when you are affected do you realise the big issue here is 'accountability' what was it Syvret used to say the Crown is untouchable and now we know why! and it's here the power is and it's here the problem is. Unless this issue is sorted out Jersey will never move forward. At long last this issue is coming to the front of people's eyes, it is in people's interest, I tried to make a complaint against a Crown Lawyer for his actions in a court room I believe and still believe were wrong and I can't make that complaint as 'the very Law' Philip and his brother created does not allow this complaint. It is time for a complete overall of the Legal system in Jersey and now! enough is enough!

Anonymous said...

Oh dear Philip Bailhahce is in China and this is all kicking off without him! Dear o dear!

Why should he care. The crown wont interfere and he knows it.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if Birt starts to distance himself from the Bailhache Brothers if I were him I would, he is sort of in the middle of a sandwich isn't he? Philip is the top layer of bread, Birt's the cheese spread and William's the bottom layer! it has been like a marriage in heaven for these three, but may start to separate or crumble! interesting times ahead.

Anonymous said...

Can Mike Higgins not bring a proposition, to amend the law?

Ministers are frequently heard to say "if the member does not like it, he is welcome to bring a proposition to the assembly".

We don't allow our hospital doctors, who are States employees, to opt out of their professional regulation with the GMC, yet insist that GPs, who are self employed like many advocates, be regulated by the GMC, do we? That would be absurd. All doctors in Jersey are regulated by the GMC, regardless of who they work for.

We don't allow government accountants to opt out of professional regulation either, as far as I know. If you want to be a chartered accountant, you register with your professional body. It imposes duties, but provides benefits. I imagine the treasurer and the new CAG are both registered with their professional bodies. I'd be surprised if they were not.

We don't allow government architects (there is one at Planning) to opt out of professional regulation either, as far as I know. We expect senior planning staff to be registered with their professional body too.

Why should government lawyers be exempt from membership of their professional body and professional regulation?

Mike H: bring that proposition.

The new chief executive of the Law Society has put himself forward as a reformer. Perhaps VFC or Tom Gruchy might request a video interview on the subject of regulation with him?

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when the assembly members don’t do their job, concentrating on useless rubbish when taking their eye off the ball on important stuff.

Scrutinising legislation!

Ian Evans said...

Rico, check THIS out!!!

Póló said...

@ Anonymous @ 7.02pm

A VFC interview with the new Law Society CEO.

Go for it.

Anonymous said...

Last writer, I will email Mr HIggins your message, it's now or never, very well written. I won't take credit for it and say it was on Rico's blog which it is.

Anonymous said...

Given the career-destroying power possessed by Jersey's senior law officers, any professional complaints against them should be handled by the U.K.'s law society rather than the Jersey one. The Lieutenant Governor could automatically channel such complaints to the Law Society of England and Wales. Perhaps the best way forward is that the Lieutenant Governor is petitioned from a variety of Jersey citizens, institutions, etc. to adopt this practice.

rico sorda said...

The Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, made a political speech from the chair. He did this to help the amendment through. Are you reading this Jim Perchard?

Anonymous said...

This island is starting to become transparant, and the criminal Judiciary are now being seen for what they are !

Anonymous said...

You've nailed it Rico. In one intervention, PB shows his colours.

Anyone arguing that the role of Bailiff as speaker is compatible with modern standards needs a reality check.

Can you imagine John Bercow, as speaker of the Houses of Parliament, making a similar intervention?

Anonymous said...

Dear Rico, the email re: proposition will be sent to Mr Higgins, however we do have a huge issue re: conflict of interest:

Sir Birt is the Bailiff who allows or disallows questions and William Bailhache is the Deputy Bailff, to be honest William should stand down so this can be properly investigated or it will never be sorted out properly, also we have Philip Bailhache now a Politician with a huge conflict of interest in relation to allowing the Crown Officers full protection and this Law was passed by him. So it's a right old mess! Higgins may well be not allowed to ask the question! So where do we go from there?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

This comment says it all really;

"Anyone arguing that the role of Bailiff as speaker is compatible with modern standards needs a reality check.

Can you imagine John Bercow, as speaker of the Houses of Parliament, making a similar intervention?"



Póló said...

@Anonymous @ 10.40

Yes.

Stuart's post, at the time of the amendment, clearly answers the Select Committee's question very eloquently.

I trust they have been provided with a copy.

This is the reason I would like to see him communicate with the Committee and take part in the COI, even if these are not serious and the results a forgegone conclusion.

It is important to be able to point to what they have been given, so that they can not plead ignorance and avoid being held to account when we reach the point when real justice is finally dispensed. Whenever.

Anonymous said...

I like Anon at 7.38 am's suggestion - how can it be set up?

rico sorda said...

I have no doubt that Deputy Higgins will be following this up. What I really wanted to highlight after looking up the debate was the intervention of the Bailiff. Now lets get this straight. He delivered a speech. That is not his job. If there was clarification needed it should have come from the Solicitor General.

The Bailiff:

"I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?"

He does not wish to join the debate but will anyway. This is simply priceless. He was assuring the assembly that this amendment could be passed. The man is a wrecking ball. Always has been and will always continue to be until he is removed from a position of influence.

rs

Anonymous said...

I do not wish to join in the debate at all but....

I can and I will. Brilliant

Anonymous said...

A lot of us saw P Bailhache's true colours when he shockingly.... Took control of taking option B through!?

Anonymous said...

Have you looked at other amendments rushed through, with the view of possible self preservation motives.

Anonymous said...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/serious-organised-crime-agency-vow-3441223

Their investigations into Warren began when Operation Flare was launched in September, 2006 – nine months before he was freed from Holland and put on a boat, at gun point, back to Britain.

“He was already planning his next operation from inside prison, and when he was released SOCA was waiting, watching, and listening. Together with our partners in the States of Jersey Police we’ve stopped Curtis Warren’s plans in their tracks.

At the same time as SOCA were watching and listening this amendment gets passed.

Anonymous said...

the Attorney General has a number of customary law and indeed statutory functions which increasingly include the inquiry into both locally, and assisting other jurisdictions, quite serious organised crime - frauds, drug trafficking and various other kinds of organised crime. Members will probably have seen in the paper the challenges which are frequently made by persons who are under investigation, here and in other jurisdictions, who have tried to challenge at every step the Attorney General when he has been seeking to assist in investigations into organised crime and into fraud.

You would not want to handicap the Attorney General would you. Lets change the law.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

There is a very useful saying that I tend to stick by. The saying is "after BUT comes bullsh1t."

It is commonly used, for instance, when Philip Ozouf starts a speech saying "Deputy Southern should be commended for bringing this proposition and I whole-heartedly agree with him" and then comes the BUT where the treasury Minister will trash the proposition and vote against it.

Here we see the former (supposedly non political) Bailiff, and now politician Philip Bailhache proving the point that "after BUt comes bullsh1t" where he says;

"I do not wish to join in the debate at all BUT I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown.

Do you see how after the BUT came the bullsh1t? Clearly he DID wish to "join the debate" because that's exactly what he did!

He made a political speech from the chair which could have swayed the debate and it all came after the word BUT.

Listen out for the BUT word in States debates in the future and see how much bullsh1t it is followed by.

Anonymous said...

VFC,

That is so true of the way they speak. It is as if they think by preemptively "addressing" a reasonable objection first, they can dismiss it entirely by pontificating. Their arrogance is what astounds me most.

I would sum it up as "We know what's best for you nobodies. OK, maybe what we do is best for us and actually worse for you, but we are smarter than you, untouchable, and you can do nothing. But, if you try, we have ways to stop you while still appearing to be a modern democracy in the eyes of those who matter. You don't matter because if you did, you would be with us as we reap what others sow. The rest of you can damn well help us or shut up, because you don't matter at all."

I'm sorry to say, I don't hear TPTB saying or doing anything to dissuade me from this opinion.

Ian Evans said...

"I'm sorry to say, I don't hear TPTB saying or doing anything to dissuade me from this opinion."

But yet they do!!!

It's called fear....

Anonymous said...

Who is TPTB?

Ian Evans said...

People? or....SHEEPLE?

Anonymous said...

TPTB = The Powers That Be.

Ian Evans said...

I almost Averty-d the sausage of abuse. Here is the SHARP REPORT'S MISSING PAGE 20 courtesy of some....honourable people :)