Thursday, September 12, 2013











I have raised the issues about how a name is now becoming data protected in the world of journalism  in Jersey.  The local media haven't even bothered to question this. In this short posting I want to raise the question about how and why the Jersey taxpayer funded this secret court case. There are some obvious questions to be asked and there might very well be some simple answers. The office of Data Protection spent around £380,000 on legal advise according to the Chief Minister during 'questions with dubious answers' in the States of Jersey. 

The most obvious questions arising from this, from a States Members point of view, is how much did it all cost and from which budget did the money come from?   But remember also that under the finance law all expenditure has to be authorised by a departmental Accounting Officer. It might be worth a States  Member to ask  who was the Accounting Officer and who authorised the expenditure in this case - and whether the Minister  is satisfied that the said accounting officer acted properly and within their legal powers.  Basically In consequence of this expenditure will there be an overspend on the annual budget approved by the States? and if so, will a proposition be brought to the House seeking to approve that expenditure?

I suspect that the Accounting Officer in this case could be the Attorney General ("AG"). Now, only Stuart Syvret knows when this secret court case was first sanctioned, in what year and who AG was at the time. Was it William Bailhache when he was AG?   William Bailhache was AG until June 2009 before being sworn in as Deputy Bailiff.  One thing for sure, if public money was spent, then it had to come from somebody's budget and only an Accounting Officer can authorise that. Has someone got too much money in their budget during these hard times? 

The current AG, Tim Le Cocq, has stated in the States that he didn't authorise this action so who did?  He might very well be right here. Could it be that it was William Bailhache as AG? This gives Tim Le Cocq his get out card.

The reason I have asked if it was William Bailhache is for the simple reason that the 4 representers against Stuart Syvret were represented by the Law Firm Appleby Global that used to be Bailhache and LaBesse. Is this a coincidence?  I think not. Follow the money and check who was in what post and at what time. 

Now I'm not saying 100% that it was then Attorney General, William Bailhache but my hunch is sending me in his direction.

Links for relevant information on this court case

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist

4 September 2013
Before     :
Sir Charles Gray, Kt., Commissioner, and Jurats Kerley and de Veulle.

First Representor

Second representor

Third Representor

Fourth Representor
Stuart Syvret
Advocate F. B. Robertson for the Representors.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Hearing in private
At the outset of the hearing I directed that the hearing should be in private because it seemed to us that this was necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice: see Jersey Evening Post Limited-v-Al Thani and Ors [2002] JLR 542 at paras [14]-[15].
The nature of the Application
1.            This is an application by the representors named above for an Order pursuant to Article 10 of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the DPL”) requiring the respondent (Mr Syvret) to cease processing their personal data on his personal blog site, (“the Blog”), and not to begin processing such data hereafter. 
2.            The background to the present application is as follows: Mr Syvret served as a Deputy in the States of Jersey from 1990 to 1993 and as a Senator from 1993 until 2010.  During that time he was President of the Health and Social Services Committee from 1999 until 2005 and thereafter was Minister for Health and Social Services from 2005 until September 2007.  He forfeited his senatorial seat in April 2010 after he spent 6 months out of Jersey. 
3.            Mr Syvret set up the Blog in January 2008.  The four representors are amongst those who have been repeatedly identified by name on the Blog as having, amongst other things, engaged in criminal behaviour.  In order to prevent further identification of the representors, I have decided that they should be referred to in this judgment as AB, CD, EF and GH. 
4.            The case for the representors is that Mr Syvret is a “data controller” within the meaning of the DPL and that he has processed their personal data by uploading, publishing and storing false and offensive posts on the Blog.  The representors contend that the allegations made about them on the Blog are untrue and unjustified. 
5.            The representors further contend that Mr Syvret is responsible for and moderates comments left on the Blog by third parties.  Their case is that Mr Syvret would be able to remove such comments from the Blog but has refused to do so. 
6.            “Notices to Stop Processing” have been served on Mr Syvret on behalf of each of the representors.  They assert that Mr Syvret has refused to stop processing their personal data which remain stored and published on the Blog. 
7.            On 17th November, 2010, Mr Syvret was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court of two offences, one of disclosing personal data without consent and one of processing personal data without being registered as a data controller.  Mr Syvret’s appeal against his said conviction in the Magistrate’s Court was dismissed by the Royal Court on 30th August, 2011. 
8.            On 13th August, 2012, the representors made an application to the Court, without notice to Mr Syvret, seeking an interim injunction restraining him from posting on the Blog or any other blog any material relating to the representors.  The Royal Court granted the injunction sought.  Subsequently on 17th August, 2012, the Royal Court issued a clarification which stated that the injunction granted on 13th August, 2012, did not apply to material already stored on the Blog but only restrained him from posting additional material on the Blog in the future. 
9.            By the present application all four representors seek a final injunction restraining Mr Syvret from processing their personal data within the meaning of the DPL. 
Proceedings in private
10.        Before turning to the merits of the present application, we should explain why, as was made clear at the beginning of this judgment, the hearing of this application was held in private.  This is a case where we are satisfied that, if any publicity were to be given to the facts of the case (including the nature of the relief sought, the evidence given and the terms of the present judgment), the object of the application would be defeated.  For the same reasons that earlier proceedings in the case have been held in private, we are satisfied that the present proceedings, including the evidence, the written argument and the terms of this judgment, should also be private.  This means that no reporting of any part of the proceedings is permissible.
11.        Before turning to the substantive issues which arise in the present application, we must consider whether the delay which has occurred in the present case is such as to deprive the representors of any entitlement which they might otherwise have had to injunctive relief. 
12.        As Advocate Robertson, who appeared for the representors on the hearing of the present application, rightly accepted in the course of his admirably clear submissions, there was some delay both before the first Notice was issued on 3rd August, 2010, as well as thereafter.  His contention is that there are several reasons which explain the delay that occurred both before and after the Royal Court granted an interim injunction on 13th August, 2012. 
13.        The charges against Mr Syvret of offences under the DPL were laid as long ago as 3rd June and 8th July, 2009.  The date initially set for the trial of those charges was 27th September, 2010.  As we understand it, the principal reason why the trial did not take place earlier was that Mr Syvret left Jersey for about 6 month after being charged and did not return until April 2010. 
14.        In the event the criminal charges against Mr Syvret were not concluded until 17th November, 2010, when, as we have already said, he was convicted of both offences.  Mr Syvret appealed against those convictions.
15.        We were told by Advocate Robertson that the representors took the view that civil proceedings should not be commenced against Mr Syvret until after the outcome of the criminal proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court was known.  We do not feel that this was an unreasonable position for the representors to have adopted in all the circumstances of the present case.  Once Mr Syvret decided to appeal, a further postponement was inevitable.  The appeal was dismissed on 30th August, 2011. 
16.        Advocate Robertson invited us to take into account various considerations, namely:-
(i)            The fact that Mr Syvret decided to stand for election as Senator in October 2011;
(ii)          The fact that the fourth representor (who had sought the assistance of the Data Protection Controller in April 2011) needed to serve on Mr Syvret a formal “Notice to Stop Processing” in order to be entitled to the relief sought in these proceedings, and
(iii)         That Mr Syvret should be afforded a further opportunity to comply with the earlier requests made on behalf of the representors before proceedings were commenced.
17.        We have carefully considered whether the delay which has taken place between the final determination of the criminal proceedings in August 2011 and the issue of the present proceedings in August 2012 is in all the circumstances unreasonable.  We have concluded, not without some hesitation, that the delay which occurred over this period is not such as to deprive the representors of the relief sought.  We accept that this period of delay was in all the circumstances excusable.  In August 2012 directions were given for the substantive hearing of the present application. 
The relevant law
18.        We turn next to the applicable law.  The starting point is to consider in what circumstances individuals such as the four representors are entitled to prevent the processing of their personal data, which is the principal relief sought in the proceedings. 
19.        Article 10 of the DPL provides as follows:-
“Right to stop processing that causes distress or damage
(1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which the individual is the data subject, on the ground that, for reasons specified in the notice –
(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to the individual or to another individual; and
(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.”
(We need not set the terms of paragraph 10(2) because it appears to us that none of the conditions in paragraphs 1-4 of Schedule 2 is applicable)
“(3) The data controller shall within 21 days of receiving notice under paragraph (1) give the individuals who gave it a written notice –
(a) stating that the data controller has complied or intends to comply with the individuals notice; or
(b) stating the data controller’s reasons for regarding the individual’s notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which the data controller has complied or intends to comply with it.
(4) If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given notice under paragraph (1) –
(a) that the notice is justified to any extent; and
(b) that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice to that extent, the court may order the data controller to take such steps as it thinks fit for complying with the notice to that extent.
(5) The failure by a data subject to exercise the right conferred by paragraph (1) does not affect any other right conferred on the data subject by this Part.”
20.        Mr Syvret having chosen not to take part in the present proceedings, Advocate Robertson drew our attention to the arguments which Mr Syvret might have advanced if he had been present.  He accepted that, where the circumstances in which the data is processed are clearly in the public interest and must necessarily be carried out without the consent of the individual concerned, then the processing of the information will be lawful.  He drew our attention to the Data Protection (Sensitive Personal Date)(Jersey) Regulations 2005, which contain a list of additional circumstances in which the processing of sensitive personal data is permitted.  He also referred us to Article 32 of the DPL which provides a number of additional exemptions. 
21.        However, it is in our judgment clear that none of these provisions are applicable in the circumstances of the present case.  There is no suggestion that any of the claimants consented to the processing of their personal data.  Nor is the data in the public domain.  We do not accept that the data with which this case is concerned could be exempted on the ground it was reasonable in the public interest for it to be published; see the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Campbell-v-Mirror Group Newspapers [2003] QB 633 at paragraph 120-1.
22.        Mr Syvret has sought to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  It is however, established law that the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 10 has to be balanced against the right to respect for private and family life contained in Article 8 of the Convention.  Whilst we accept that Article 8 does not encompass a right to privacy as such, there is ample authority that the Court is required in cases such as the present one to have regard to the rights of individuals such as the representors in the present case to respect for their private and family life.  We are in no doubt that the right of Mr Syvret to freedom of expression is outweighed by the right of the representors to protection under Article 8. 
Applicability of the DPL to blog sites
23.        Although Mr Syvret has chosen not to appear before us we have nevertheless considered whether the provisions of section 10 of the DPL apply to blog sites.  There is no Jersey authority, so far as we are aware, on this point.  We were therefore invited by Advocate Robertson to consider the position under English law. 
24.        We accept that section 1 of the English Data Protection Act 1998 defines “data” in broad terms. 
25.        We were referred by Advocate Robertson to Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy (6th edition), paragraph 22.14 of which reads as follows:-
“Given the now near-ubiquitous retention and processing of information in electronic form on digital devices by those working in the media – and many other – contexts, the scope of the first two of these concepts is extremely broad.  They would extent, for example, to information captured and/or held in audio, visual and textual file formats on computers, video cameras, voice recorders, disks and so on.”
26.        It appears to us that Jersey law should likewise give a wide meaning to the term “data”.  Since posts on the Blog are disseminated to others by computers and/or the internet, we consider that posts on blogsites fall within the scope of the DPL.
Interaction between the DPL and other causes of action such as defamation and harassment.
27.        Given that, so far as we are aware, there is no Jersey authority as to the interaction between data protection law and other parallel concepts such as defamation, we think it right that we should consider the English authorities which bear on the point.  We feel that we are justified in doing so since the English Data Protection Act is in very similar terms to the Jersey DPL. 
28.        We were referred by Advocate Robertson to two English authorities, namely Campbell-v-Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] 2 WLR 1232 and The Law Society-v-Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185.  Whilst we accept that it is the practice in England for claimants to advance claims for defamation and harassment with a claim for data protection in the same proceedings, we are satisfied that there is no reason why a claim for data protection should not stand alone as a separate and distinct cause of action. 
29.        In Kordowski, Tugendhat J observed at paragraph 172:-
“I note with interest that an injunction preventing the processing of personal data in relation to a website was granted in representative proceedings in SHG-v-Baines [2006] EWHC 2359…  The terms of the injunction were to restrain publication of defamatory words and harassment as well as processing personal data.”
Tugendhat J granted a perpetual injunction in Kordowski restraining the defendant from processing personal data as well as from publishing defamatory words and harassment. 
30.        Whilst we are not of course obliged to follow English authority, which is no more than persuasive as far as the Courts of Jersey are concerned, we think it right that the Courts of Jersey should follow English law.  Accordingly we take the view that the court may in an appropriate case grant relief under Article 10 of the DPL independently of any other cause of action. 
The first question: do the posts on the Blog constitute “sensitive personal data” as defined in the DPL?
31.        We now turn to the questions which arise in relation to the concepts which are to be found in the DPL, starting with the definition of “sensitive personal data”. 
32.        Article 1 of the DPL defines “data” as:-
“Information which is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system, or forms part of an accessible record.”
Given that posts on the Blog are both stored and disseminated via computers and/or the internet, we consider that they fall within the definition of “data” in the DPL.
33.        The next question is whether the data with which the case is concerned qualifies as “personal” data.  Article 1 of the DPL defines such data as being:-
“data that relates to a living individual who can be identified [either] from those data, or [else] from those data and other information that is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the relevant data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about an individual who can be so identified and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of an individual who can be so identified.”
34.        The material criteria are:-
(i)            The identifiability of the individual concerned and
(ii)          The possession or likely possession of the data.
It is to be noted that data includes “any expression of opinion about an individual”.  We have noted the hostile and abusive opinions expressed by Mr Syvret on the Blog. 
35.        In Durant-v-Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 the English Court of Appeal indicated two ways in which it might be determined whether data qualifies as personal data about an individual: firstly, by considering whether the information is “biographical to a significant degree” and, secondly, by considering whether the person concerned is “the focus of the information”.  We are satisfied on the basis of Durant that the data with which this case is concerned qualifies as “personal” data for the purposes of the DPL. 
36.        Finally we consider next whether the personal data concerning the representors qualify as “sensitive” personal data?  The term is defined in Article 2 of the DPL as comprising inter alia information about an individual’s physical or mental condition, sexual life, commission or alleged commission of criminal offences and any related legal proceedings. 
37.        The reason why it is material to consider whether the information with which the case is concerned qualifies as “sensitive” is that the DPL imposes an additional requirement that sensitive personal data should be processed “fairly and lawfully”
38.        It appears to us to be clear that many of the posts on the Blog complained of do come within the statutory definition of “sensitive personal data” in Article 2 of the DPL.  In particular we are satisfied that some posts contain data about the commission or alleged commission of criminal offences and proceedings regarding such offences. 
39.        We note that in his response to the notices to stop processing issued on behalf of the first, second and third representors, Mr Syvret contended that the information published on the Blog consists of “generally known, public information, hearsay, opinions, and other such, much of which was conveyed to me by my former constituents.  It thus constitutes material that falls squarely within the bounds of free speech as guaranteed by the ECHR.”
40.        As it appears to us, Mr Syvret is implicitly accepting in the description he gives of the material contained on the Blog that it does contain “personal data” which is “sensitive” within the meaning of Article 2 of the DPL. 
Is Mr Syvret the “data controller” of material published on the Blog?
41.        We are satisfied that Mr Syvret comes with the definition of “Data Controller” in Article 1 of the DPL which defines a data controller as meaning:-
“a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purpose for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed”.
We accept that Mt Syvret falls fair and square within this definition; on his own case it was he who decided what personal data should be processed and his purpose and manner of doing so. 
42.        An allied question is whether Mr Syvret “processed” data on the Blog.  We note that “processing” is defined in Article 1 of the Law as follows:-
“”Processing”, in relation to information or data, means obtaining, re cording or holding the information or data, or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data, including –
(a) organising, adapting, or altering the information or data;
(b) retrieving, consulting or using the information or data;
(c) disclosing the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making it available; or
(d) aligning, combining, blocking, erasing or destroying the information or data.”
43.        We are satisfied on the evidence that Mr Syvret carried out most, if not all, of the operations on the information or data published on the Blog which are set out in (a) to (d) inclusive.  In consequence we find that he is the “data controller” of the material on the Blog. 
Substantial damage or distress
44.        The principal relief sought against Mr Syvret by the representors is an injunction.  We consider that each of the representors is plainly entitled to the injunctive relief sought. 
45.        The representors also claim that they have suffered substantial damage and substantial distress.  Given the nature of the allegations made by Mr Syvret against each of the representors, we readily accept that each of them will have been distressed and angered by the postings on the Blog. 
46.        The statutory requirement sit at the representors must establish substantial distress.  There is little help to be derived from the English authorities as to the meaning in the present context of the word “substantial”.  We consider that, when used to qualify distress, substantial bears the meaning that the distress caused is more than merely trivial. 
47.        As to the requirement that the damage suffered must be substantial we take the view that the word “substantial”, when applied to the level of damage, bears the same meaning as it does when applied to distress, namely that to qualify as substantial the damage suffered must be more than merely trivial.  We reject the notion that damage needs to involve financial loss or physical harm in order to qualify as substantial. 
48.        Each of the four representors describes both in that Notice to Stop Processing and in that witness statements the nature of the damage and distress they claim to have suffered. 
49.        One of the representors explains in the Stop Notice the nature of the substantial distress and substantial damage he claims to have suffered.  He asserts that the distress arises mainly from the statements accusing him of most serious criminal wrongdoing.  As to damage, his case is that the unwarranted imputations made by Mr Syvret about him have caused substantial damage to his business interests as well as damage to his health and reputation.  The other representors advance comparable claims as to the damage suffered. 
50.        We are satisfied that the distress and damage suffered by each of the four representors are “substantial” in the sense which we have indicated. 
51.        Accordingly for the reasons set out above we are satisfied that each of the applicants has established his entitlement to the relief sought. 
Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.
Data Protection (Sensitive Personal Date)(Jersey) Regulations 2005.
European Convention on Human Rights.
Data Protection Act 1998.
Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy (6th edition).
The Law Society-v-Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185.


Jacques said...

I think that the sum mentioned is just part of a much larger figure. This money may have come from the criminal confiscation fund and or the legal aid vote. I wonder if Advocate David Benest worked on this case. I see that he has now left Appleby Global and set up shop on his own. Did he jump or was he pushed?

rico sorda said...

To the person who sent me the not for publication please feel free to contact me via Facebook. Ref (JEP)

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

An important posting - asking the most serious of questions.

But let no-one be under the illusion that this, particular, phase of the campaign of oppression against journalism and democracy - the case of the four proxies - represents the main issue.

It is but one small part of the collapse of the Crown functions in Jersey.

Whether William Bailhache was the initiating agent of this particular phase, is irrelevant - because he was the initiating agent of the entire state-oppression against me - including the illegal massed-police raid - carried out without a search-warrant - after the illegal suspension of the legitimate Police Chief Graham Power; an illegal suspension that William Bailhache was also involved in. We have Graham Power's affidavit - in which he recounts William Bailhache's illegal attempt to coerce Mr Power into dropping the investigation into planning corruption.

When the Police Chief rightly - and courageously - resisted this criminality, Bailhache said to him, "so be it."

Mr Power was unlawfully suspended shortly afterwards.

Following the illegal action of the police raid against me - William Bailhache also went on to make the decisions to have me charged and prosecuted.

Bailhache took that extraordinarily conflicted involvement in the oppression conducted against me - against the stark background of me being the only public figure at that time attempting to oppose and expose the Blanche Pierre child abuse atrocity, committed by Jane and Alan Maguire, which was permitted - and then covered-up - by Jersey's authorities.

Philip Bailhache - William Bailhache's brother - failed to see the Maguires and the Education Committee were prosecuted in 1990.

And then, in 1998 when the Police made a belated attempt to prosecute the Maguires - that prosecution was sabotaged by then Attorney General Michael Birt - and the victims were assigned William Bailhache's law firm, Bailhache LaBesse, to "represent" them.

Bailhache LaBesse wholly failed - betrayed - those young legal aid clients.

William Bailhache was the Senior Partner at the time.

He became Attorney General shortly afterwards.

It was simply - and remains plainly - wholly unlawful for William Bailhache to have had any involvement - of any kind - as a Crown Officer, in any of the child-protection matters - especially any matter that in any way relates to the Maguire case- or any person - like me - trying to expose the truth of that case and get justice for the victims.

But - even then - don't be distracted by focusing on Bailhache; after all - it is in no way surprising that privileged, over-powerful hick-town potentates will become crazed with hubris and maddened with a sense of invulnerability - if allowed to, and given free-reign.

The real question here - is why have successive Lieutenant Governors - and the monarch - the power of the Crown - acted to install, empower, and protect these plainly inadequate - and dangerous - Jersey public officials?


rico sorda said...

Stuart, what year did the 4 get together? As I remember from comments left on you're blog from many years ago there were more than just 4. Who sanctioned the use of public money? I believe this is important - who was the Accounting Officer? At the end of the day public money has been used and the public deserve to know how much it really cost us and who sanctioned it.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


Before I answer your question, just a brief point - although it will be obvious to any thinking person - the "judgment" reproduced in the posting is - plainly - manifest nonsense - for all kinds of reasons, & people shouldn't be intimidated by such overt cobblers - no matter that it's handed down to us mere plebs from the lofty heights of what purports to be a "court".

I will be dealing with the various omissions, distortions, and out-of-context assertions in the "judgment" in due course.

In the mean time, just look at it this way:

'What is the "meaning" of this "judgment" - what are its implications and case-law affects - if it was correct?'

It would mean that journalism was illegal.

That's all the "judgment" merits saying about at the moment.

To address your questions, I can't answer all of them - but I can state that the "civil" data protection action - authorised by Emma Martins - along with a very long list of proxies - including, for example, Marnie Baudains, Richard Jouault - and a load of other obvious, conflicted - very expensive - senior civil servants - was first used to threaten me in early 2010, when I was in London.

After I returned to Jersey, that "civil" attempt to abuse the data protection law against democracy and journalism was dropped.

It was resurrected - two years later - in an act of crazed fear and revenge - following my publication of the interim statement to the Wiltshire police by unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.

As far as who the sanctioning accounting officer was - well - that remains something of a mystery, doesn't it?

But - somehow - I think we will find out.

There was always a certain momentum - and a certain inevitability - about just how all of this corruption and madness was going to end.

I think the only people who couldn't see that - and maybe still can't, given how maddened with hubris they are - are the Jersey oligarchs.

Their Gotterdammerung approaches.


Anonymous said...

''Subsequently on 17th August, 2012, the Royal Court issued a clarification which stated that the injunction granted on 13th August, 2012, did not apply to material already stored on the Blog but only restrained him from posting additional material on the Blog in the future.''

I am just working my way through this blog post.

The above is the first question jumping out at me. Why did the Court want particular dates from 13th August on record. Prior to 13th August there was no problem or prior to the 13th the person who sanctioned the action wanted to be out the picture?

Anonymous said...

Attorney Generals review 2009

See bottom of page 17 No 3

Also page 44. it would appear 4 instances in 2009 of data protection registrar giving advice to the police

Anonymous said...

All this post case analysis, and yet a complete failure to ask the basic question of why stuart chose to publicly insult people on his blog ? Surely without that, none of this would be necessary ?

Perhaps you'd like to 'have a look' at that basic question as any good objective investigative reporter would ?

rico sorda said...

"All this post case analysis, and yet a complete failure to ask the basic question of why stuart chose to publicly insult people on his blog ? Surely without that, none of this would be necessary ?

Perhaps you'd like to 'have a look' at that basic question as any good objective investigative reporter would ?"

In the 'Public Interest' was Stuarts reason for publishing and saying what he did. Interesting that the office of DP was in full flow back in 2009. This is why my attention is being drawn towards Willliam Bailhache. Plans were being drawn up back then.

It would be interesting to know what others in the legal profession make of this judgement. This is my last posting for a little while as I have a very busy schedule coming up. I believe it's important that everyone becomes a journalist and starts asking questions. We have been lied to for many years by the Jersey Elite.

There must be numerous skeletons in numerous cupboards in numerous departments waiting to be found when certain members are no longer in the states. Time is on our side.

Anonymous said...

What an interesting document the Attorney General Review is. Page 36 has additional information about. Data Protection. Thanks for the link.

Anonymous said...

Breaking News: We are all data processors. Who knew?


Anonymous said...

Serious cause for concern here. In their attempts to twist the original intentions of the DP Law, it seems that normal journalism cannot function any more. Jersey has stifled any notion of Free Press and all we expect from it, more successfully than almost any repressive regime! This should be headline news around any freethinking parts of the world!

Anonymous said...

Elle @ 8:04 am "Breaking News: We are all data processors"

I'm not sure it is breaking news that we are all "data processors" but it is shocking that any one of us can be deemed a "CRIMINAL data processor" in jersey on the whim of authority. If we use a computer, a phone, a modern photocopier, or even a brain (?!) then we are data processors.

It seems that in the wrong hands data protection laws are the ideal tool of despots and bureaucrats to control a subservient population under the pretence of democracy.
Journalism, "public interest" , ............. or even accident or convenience could be insufficient defence in a Jersey court.

Any one of us can be deemed a criminal and persecuted just upon a "so be it" moment, or even less.

Rob Kent said...

The Data Protection Act was introduced to protect citizens from having their personal information abused by corporations or institutions to whom they have given that data as a necessary prerequisite for carrying out some transaction, either commercial or administrative.

Examples of such transactions are: I apply for travel insurance and I provide the insurer with my medical history; I apply for a bank loan and I provide the bank with details of my employer and earnings; I apply for housing benefit and I provide the state with information about my living arrangements, my personal relationships, etc.

Before the introduction of the DPA, there was nothing to stop the organisation I entrusted with my information from either carelessly or deliberately sharing it with someone else or selling it on for commercial purposes.

The sole purpose of the act was identify such organisations - with whom you cannot carry out a transaction without disclosing personal information - and enforcing them to keep your information secure and private, and to only use it for the purposes for which it was acquired. The organisation has to nominate a Data Controller, someone who is the point of contact and responsible for data management within that organisation.

All information provided in such a way must be kept in a 'filing system', previously paper-based but now more often digital. What the court in Jersey has done is a sleight of hand: they have deliberately misinterpreted the intention and the meaning of the law, because none of the individuals [not] named in Stuart's case provided him with their information in his role as a Data Controller. Actually, it is possible that when he was Minister he did receive some of those reports in that way, but I am sure he didn't.

But, for the sake of argument, let us limit it to the case of the local troll who has been convicted of harrassment in court and whose name is widely known through the Jersey Evening Post and court documents. Stuart, acquired the information he has published about the troll not because it was provided to him as part of a transaction covered by the DPA but simply through first- or second-hand knowledge of the troll's behaviour. It's basically a mixture of fact and gossip, much of it first-hand and some of it publically available through other media.

By sharing that information with us through his blog - in the same way the troll has done about others on the blogs HE runs - Stuart is in no way acting as a Data Controller. The fact that his blog is stored on a computer filing system does not make him a de facto Data Controller under the terms of the DPA. ALL digital data must be stored in a filing system if it is not to be transient.

To interpret the law in the way the Jersey Courts have done means that anybody who publishes any information about anybody else is a de facto Data Controller and the DPA can be used to suppress their right to freedom of expression.

Their interpretation of the law also has the bizarre consequence of implying that the information Stuart has published is correct: because it is personal information about the individual. If it was not correct, it could not be personal information and is merely rumour and hearsay.

Using the DPA in this way would stop much journalism in its tracks. Just one example: two of the QCs on opposing sides of the Leveson hearing were discovered by the newspapers to have taken a romantic holiday together in Greece. This may have a bearing on their objectivity in the hearing and its conclusion. Many of the national papers published this 'personal information' and stored it on their filing systems. But that information is definitely not covered by the DPA.

Under the Jersey ruling, those newspapers could be found guilty using this egregious abuse of the DPA. Welcome to totalitarian Jersey, folks!

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, a reader says:

"All this post case analysis, yet a complete failure to ask the basic question why stuart chose to publicly insult people on his blog ? Surely without that, none of this would be necessary ?

Perhaps you'd like to 'have a look' at that basic question?"

What a ridiculous question - but it's very useful - in that it illustrates the basic decadence and intellectual bankruptcy of the Jersey oligarchy.

Even taking the question on its own premise - that the things published on the blog were nothing more than "public insults" - so what?

Since when was it against the law to insult people?

Since when did it attract state action - and vast amounts of tax-payers money - things like massed - un-warranted - police-raids - and Stalinistic show-trials - in which the accused was not allowed a defence - if you were rude about someone?

No respectable western democracy has ever passed any such law in the modern era.

Not even the States of Jersey.

All of the actions taken against me have been, & are fundamentally unlawful.

Your reader inadvertently reveals the real "thinking" - if it merits such description - of the Jersey oligarchy: essentially, they claim that the campaign of oppression conducted against me was "necessary" - "necessary", note - because I was being rude about Jersey oligarchs and their allies.

One of the reasons we fought WWII was because it was vital to protect the freedom of speech enjoyed in the west.

We were allowed to be rude about our "superiors"; we were allowed to say that Churchill was a damn fool - and our government a load of crooks - if that's what we thought.

People fought and died to protect our freedoms. Yet here in Jersey, in the 21st century, a small claque of directly conflicted - misfeasant - public officials - who have failed in the most basic of their duties - for example protecting vulnerable children, apprehending their attackers, or protecting vulnerable patients from harm - are allowed to cover-up their failures, and abuse public money, and the "law" to silence public-interest free-speech.

If some of what I've written has been insulting about certain individuals - so what? Each of them thoroughly deserve it; we are a free society.

But - let us not be diverted by the question; the vast majority - of the things published on my blog - that the Jersey oligarchy wants to suppress - are not the mere "insulting" parts - but, rather the important - evidenced - public-interest things; those things which suggest serious crimes - and the corrupt concealment of serious crimes by Jersey's public authorities.

All of those many - many - things - which all point starkly to an overall, irrefutable conclusion: namely that the proper rule of law does not exist in Jersey, and that the island's polity is a failed, corrupted entity - in which ordinary vulnerable people are not protected from criminals or protected from harm.

Let's re-pitch the reader's question - "Surely without that, none of this would be necessary?" - and ask it of first-base: surely without the years of child-abuse - without the years of the corrupt concealment of child-abuse - without the years of failing to bring child-abusers to justice - without the failures to protect the weak and vulnerable - without the mutually-protecting corporate stagnation of all public-authority in Jersey - without the failure of the Fourth-Estate in the island - none of this would have been necessary?

That is the question.

And the answer is "yes" - then the work of citizen's media in Jersey wouldn't have been necessary.

But sadly, it has been - and is - and will continue to be - necessary.

Until this community has the protections of functioning checks & balances and the proper rule of law - and a real Fourth-Estate.


Anonymous said...

One other jurisdiction has recently introduced legislation that has a very similar effect to Jersey's deliberately misinterpreted Data Protection Law:

"(Reuters) - China unveiled on Monday tough measures to stop the spread of what the government calls irresponsible rumors, threatening three years in jail if untrue posts online are widely reposted, drawing an angry response from Chinese internet users.

China is in the middle of yet another crackdown on what it terms "online rumors", as the government tries to rein in social media, increasingly used by Chinese people to discuss politics, despite stringent censorship.

According to a judicial interpretation issued by China's top court and prosecutor, people will be charged with defamation if online rumors they create are visited by 5,000 internet users or reposted more than 500 times.

That could lead to three years in jail, state media reported, citing the judicial document. That is the standard sentence for defamation.

"People have been hurt and reaction in society has been strong, demanding with one voice serious punishment by the law for criminal activities like using the internet to spread rumors and defame people," said court spokesman Sun Jungong.

"No country would consider the slander of other people as 'freedom of speech'," Sun said at a news conference, carried live by the People's Daily website.

The interpretation also set out what is considered a "serious case" of spreading false information or rumors online, including those which cause mental anguish to the subjects of rumors.

Other serious cases involve the spreading of false information that causes protests, ethnic or religious unrest or has a "bad international effect".

Users of China's popular Twitter-like Sina Weibo microblogging site expressed anger about the new rules.

"It's far too easy for something to be reposted 500 times or get 5,000 views. Who is going to dare say anything now?" wrote one Weibo user.

"This interpretation is against the constitution and is robbing people of their freedom of speech," wrote another.

State media have reported dozens of detentions in recent weeks as the government pushes a crackdown on the spreading of rumors.

The campaign comes as President Xi Jinping's newly installed government steps up its harassment of dissidents, showing no sign of wanting to loosen the party's grip on power.

China says it has a genuine need to stop the spread of irresponsible rumors, pointing to some of what authorities say are patently ridiculous things said online of late, including a story that a soup had been made of dead babies"

Notice that even a repressive country like China does not publicly say that you cannot publish the truth.

Anonymous said...

Timeline of dates.

Charges laid against Mr Syvret 3rd June & 8th July 2009.

First notice issued 3rd August 2010 as well as thereafter.

Date for trial set 27th September 2010

Criminal charges concluded 17th November 2010 convicted of both offences.(disclosing personal data without consent and procesing personal data without being registered as a data controller)

Mr Syvrets appeal dismissed 30th August 2011

Represontors made application to court without notice to Mr Syvret seeking an interim injunction restraining him from posting on Blog or any other blog any material relationg to the representors.(No given date)
In No given date. August 2012 directions were given for the substantive hearing of the present application

Interim injunction granted 13th August 2012

17th August 2012 Court isued clarification that the injunction granted on 13 August 2012 did not apply to material already stored on the Blog but only restrained him from posting additional material.

By the present application of what date?

All four representors seek a final injunction restraining Mr Syvret from processing their personal data

the fourth representor (who had sought the assistance of the Data Protection Controller in April 2011) needed to serve on Mr Syvret a formal “Notice to Stop Processing” in order to be entitled to the relief sought in these proceedings, and

(iii) That Mr Syvret should be afforded a further opportunity to comply with the earlier requests made on behalf of the representors before proceedings were commenced

Article 10 of the DPL provides as follows:-

“(3) The data controller shall within 21 days of receiving notice under paragraph (1) give the individuals who gave it a written notice –

rico sorda said...

Follow the money. Then the answers to the many questions will become a little clearer.

voiceforchildren said...


Here's a question.

What is substantial damage or stress?

"The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress"

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.

Anonymous said...

I don't foresee, given the quote from the Solicitor General: a situation, where data protection would be refused.

The offended person goes to data protection upset about being mention on blog etc, data protection test enquires are you stressed or require damages.of course they will say yes.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


Jacques says: -

"I think that the sum mentioned is just part of a much larger figure. This money may have come from the criminal confiscation fund and or the legal aid vote. I wonder if Advocate David Benest worked on this case. I see that he has now left Appleby Global and set up shop on his own. Did he jump or was he pushed?"

Advocate David Benest did work on this case.

In the earlier stages, he was Appleby Global's lead lawyer in the case.

I have e-mail correspondence from & to him & the court concerning this case.

He - of course - is directly conflicted - given his earlier involvement in obstructing Blanche Pierre / Maguire / SOJ victims from retrieving their case-files from the law-firm.

But whether he has left Appleby Global / Bailhache LaBesse makes no difference to the conflicts of interest that contaminate the firm.

That law-firm continues to - and always will - carry legal, ethical and fiduciary liability to the survivors who it betrayed.

Sadly, I'm far from convinced even the current legal representation of those survivors has been of a good standard.

Had it been - the survivors would have been advised of the immensely strong legal claim they have against Bailhache LaBesse / Appleby Global - and the Crown Offices - for the 1998/99 betrayal and failures and further harm they suffered.



Anonymous said...

In the Law Officers' Department, the Chief Clerk is the
Accounting Officer and is responsible for all financial matters
relating to the Department.

Anonymous said...

So when the Police arrest and charge someone for alledged child abuse, and their name is front page news and talk of the TV industry etc.. for example Mr Le Vell.

He would have a very strong case to now sue the newspapers for publicising his case as it caused him great stress and was very distressful for him. Now cleared of any guilt, great damage has been done. The Jersey Way says YES.
like the recent UK case with Mr

Anonymous said...

Rob Kent, once again, provides a logical and concise explanation of this extraordinary misuse of the Data Protection Law. Some very good comments all around! Another commenter brings up the China example, which is relevant. Is China's motive for crackdown on unwanted rumour not exactly the same as Jersey's, in this situation?

I note from the Judgement, there is emphasis on Stuart's prior Ministerial and Senatorial positions. Was that a non-evidenced implication that Stuart's specific professional access to personal data on these four individuals is directly and legally tied to confidential data he disclosed on his blog?

That seems to create an interestingly unstated justification, of sorts - a mighty stretch for the Court, and from my interpretation, it is thrown in to be used as an unspoken foundation to distinguish this one case as unique. Without that implied distinction of Stuart's former office, isn't there an obvious implication that all internet users are at the same risk of similar oppression, much like in the China example?

But to me, there is a subtext of the Court wishing to finally wash Jersey's hands of this case, because the Judgement even implies official resignation that Stuart will not remove the offending data. There is also the apparent reluctance to recommend additional extreme measures.

So, isn't the Judgement all just a collection of vague and hopeless justifications for what has already made this an untenable and ridiculous legal action?


Anonymous said...

Did you know, and no doubt Stuart already knows this, that Advocate Richard "Les Pas Holdings" Falle is the Uncle of Grouville Deputy Carolyn Labey! How interesting eh!

Anonymous said...

The date initially set for the trial of those charges was 27th September, 2010. As we understand it, the principal reason why the trial did not take place earlier was that Mr Syvret left Jersey for about 6 month after being charged and did not return until April 2010

With the trial was set for the above date and Mr Syvret being in Jersey five months prior and up to the trial date. The trial could of taken place.

Why were assumptions made against Mr Syvret? Who is to blame for that assumption?

Anonymous said...

''We were told by Advocate Robertson that the representors took the view that civil proceedings should not be commenced against Mr Syvret until after the outcome of the criminal proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court was known.''

Is the above quote and the assumption made that Mr Syvret would not be attending the real reason a trial did not take place at the date set.?

Anonymous said...

The comment at 11.39pm raises this issue, 'Did you know, and no doubt Stuart already knows this, that Advocate Richard "Les Pas Holdings" Falle is the Uncle of Grouville Deputy Carolyn Labey! How interesting eh!'

Not sure what point is being made? It's common knowledge she & Falle are related. But if the suggestion is that this means she supported the Les Pas Holdings scam, for the record, that is the opposite of the truth. She spoke out against the States doing a deal with Falle's scheme, and voted against it in the States.

Of course, it might be justified to criticise her for other things, but that's not one of them. And if she's become politically silent, and goes along with the establishment more these days, it's hardly surprising is it? She's been beaten into submission by state oppression such as having her house raided and searched all over without a search warrant, her children's' bedrooms searched, and her files copied & Falle's good friend Philip Bailhache tried to intimidate her into withdrawing the planning corruption complaints she had made to Graham Power the Police Chief.

She failed to support Stuart Syvret when all this was going on & he was the only States member making a stand against the child abuse, but let's face it, the things the Establishment did to them were probably designed to split them apart, mainly so as demoralise and damage and disrupt Syvret. And she's now with a 4 times married old Glaswegian taxi driver with a bad reputation and a number of unsavoury friends in the not good faction of the police force, so it's hardly as if things worked out well for her.

People should remember before having a go at her that she did many good things politically, like saving Grouville Common from being built over by the Jersey Potteries establishment family, and taking the political lead on trying to get the planning corruption properly investigated.

Everyone in Jersey knows that planning corruption is rife here and has been for generations but how many of our politicians had the courage to try and tackle it? She did, & one of the results was the illegal suspension of the Police Chief because he insisted on taking the issue seriously.

I shall continue to vote for her as long as she carries on seeking election in Grouville.

Anonymous said...

This will not go down well with the TPTB.

Comment section.

Anonymous said...

@ Sept 14, 5:11 PM
Yes. Thus far the "Guernsey Press" newspaper has a far better record than the toe-curling JEP.
In addition to not censoring comments like the JEP would, The Guernsey Press has campaigned for child abuse victims rather than further abused them.

I believe The Guernsey Press has been very good which must sometimes put it in an awkward position as it is under the same ownership as the JEP.

The difference is probably down to editorial control not being compromised and captured.

In the fullness of time the management of the JEP will expose their UK parent media company to considerable embarrassment or worse.

It is like eating dirt to say:
Well done Guernsey. Well done The Guernsey Press !

Anonymous said...

Comment @ Sept 14, 4:26 PM and hence also this reply have been pasted to :


I too still like Carolyn Labey and hope that she finds the strength to do the right thing as she has in the past.

I knew she was connected to an establishment family, but thanks to commenters Sept 14, 4:26 PM (& 12:45 ) for providing further detail.

We should have "historic" gratitude and respect for past campaigners such as Carolyn Labey and Simon Crowcroft.

In spite of their recent cosying up to the corrupt establishment, they might remain the best of a bad bunch (sad to say)
At least they have shown that they have a moral compass and on occasion the moral fortitude to use it, even while wading through the nest of vipers that establishment run politics has proven to be.

Few of us could have done what they have 'historicly' done without getting exhausted, frightened, reeled in, or even compromised.

Even with historic performance no one should be sure of my automatic vote
and probably the quality blogs will remain the best source of independent pre-election information on the candidates.

Anonymous said...

"and probably the quality blogs will remain the best source of independent pre-election information on the candidates."

That is true but due to the stitch up of the Data Protection Law the entire population of the island has been criminalised. The establishment just have to choose which of us they wish to prosecute and which of us to ignore. That is the kind of power that can only be bought with taxpayer's money.

For example the comment largely supportive of Carolyn Labey (Sept 14, 4:26 PM) could be deemed to be a breach of the Jersey Data Protection Law

Both the commenter and Rico have processed the "data" and might risk prosecution.

This Judgement and the existing law (as interpreted) cannot be allowed to stand in a free and democratic society.

Anonymous said...

A prediction comes true from

"It was done with a relative stranglehold on power & information. A stranglehold which they fully intend to reassert.
Mark my words."

And so it came to pass:

If Ex-Health Minister Syvret's comments and revelations were predominantly untrue he should have been prosecuted for libel/deformation.

"Data" is commonly understood to be TRUE information so the failed Super-injunction judgement does nothing to clear the names of the 4 taxpayer funded claimants.

The judgement is an attempt by the establishment to dig it's way out of the hole it dug but only serves to reinforce Syvret's allegations with the hijack of the data protection office rather than risk a libel case.

This sets a number of dangerous precedents. We are all "data controllers" & non-libellous (&true) commenting and even investigative journalism must not cause "distress".

Anonymous said...

If this Data Protection Law interpretation does continue to stand, why did the resistance to the Nazis even bother? Why the pretense to democracy? This law is where all must draw a sharp line in the sand, or Jersey is damned.

Zoompad said...

"Sadly, I'm far from convinced even the current legal representation of those survivors has been of a good standard. "

The only solicitor I trusted was my own Richard Wise - and look what happened to him - and he did NOT have terminal cancer, he was as fit as a fiddle until he very unexpectadly and suddenly died.

After that I got automatically passed over to Tulip - and they were crap.

voiceforchildren said...


School Shooting in Jersey EXCLUSIVE

Anonymous said...

The very name"Data Protection" could long bear the tarnish of infamy in Jersey.

Others may now threaten to DPA you for what you said in truth. Or not in truth. Truth having no bearing at all.

Anonymous said...

The secracy stitch up tightens,2651.msg45485.html#msg45485

voiceforchildren said...


Super injunction on/off BBC

Anonymous said...

Any one seen this,
Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

voiceforchildren said...


Although off subject it is important to remember that the BBC KNEW

Anonymous said...

This bears repeating; from the 2nd page of comments (#215) at

2 October 2013 15:02
"A civilised Jersey conservative" said...

Mr Syvret, the magnitude of what you have done may well be lost on most of your readers. It isn't lost on the legal profession nor intelligent observers further afield. You have, as you correctly observed, 'faced down' the Jersey courts. People never, and I mean 'never', 'face down' a court. At least, not if the society is respectable and the person not a tyrant with an army at his back. Or, of course, in the case of an ordinary person like yourself, no court confident of its respectability would be 'faced down'. Our society is not respectable. And alas our courts even less so. As some 'higher external power' has finally had the good sense to recognise, it would seem. There can be no other explanation for you not being in prison. I am, incidentally, glad that you are not, and relieved, and deeply saddened at the same time. I've savoured a certain schadenfreude when discussing the situation with other lawyers & saying 'I told you so' when reminding them of the innumerable times I said 'no good would ever come of the folly of the actions against you, and it could only end in lasting damage to the island'. So it has come to pass. It saddens me that so many colleagues have been too fearful & foolish to have moved to stop this madness (and that is not an inappropriate word)when our Crown Officers embarked on the lunacy several years ago.

Will you be a candidate in the next elections?

Anonymous said...

I'm not a great fan of blogs as people can post anything without recourse and today's papers demonstrate how damaging they can actually be.
It is incorrect for example when Carolyn Labey is accused of being politically silent. I am a fisherman and I know she has been fighting tooth and nail for us with the Guernsey situation we are faced with. They JEP never report it but nor do these blogs. All you guys seem to be interested in is child abuse.
If that is all you are interested in and slagging off the establishment then okay, but don't make out others do nothing when they get on with other important work and fight for Jerseymen's rights in other areas that go unreported - here and other media channels.
As for 'quality of blogs' maybe it is them that are politically silent in some subjects.