Thursday, September 5, 2013

THE JERSEY EVENING POST - THEY SIMPLY FEAR CITIZEN MEDIA






"THE JERSEY EVENING POST"



"A MOST REMARKABLE EDITORIAL"



"THE EDITOR WHO WROTE THIS PIECE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AT BEST THE JEP IS SLEEPING ON THE JOB OR AT WORST  JUST USELESS "


"I BELIEVE THEY ARE SIMPLY LYING"



"THIS WAS NOT A LIBEL CASE BUT A DATA PROTECTION ISSUE"



"THEY FEAR THE INTERNET. THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE AND HAS NO WISH OF RETURNING"



THEY STATE:

"However, although the outcome of this case is without doubt highly satisfactory, one aspect of the legal process was less than satisfactory. At a very late stage the Jersey Evening Post was able to question the principle of the case being heard in private.
This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched."


"THE FEAR  THEY HAVE FOR CITIZEN MEDIA IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE"


MAINSTREAM MEDIA THE WORLD OVER KNOW THE POWER OF THE INTERNET IS SURPASSING THEM ON ALL LEVELS. THE JERSEY MSM IS NO DIFFERENT.



THE EDITORIAL

Justice that should be transparent
Thursday 5th September 2013, 5:33PM BST.


.
A ROYAL Court judgment published yesterday spelled out an important message: bloggers can be barred from publishing scurrilous, distressing and damaging allegations on the internet.
The judgment also made it clear that claims that such material can be circulated on the basis of spurious appeals to the public interest or equally spurious reference to Human Rights Law will not be accepted as excuses for publication.
The judgment was published after the court had granted an injunction to four unnamed individuals who successfully claimed that they had been unreasonably, unfairly, systematically and unlawfully traduced in a blog published by former States Senator Stuart Syvret. Founded on the provisions of the Island’s Data Protection Law, the judgment means that Mr Syvret has been ordered to remove the distressing and damaging material and to desist from publishing material of a similar character.
As well as ordering the removal of unacceptable content from an online publication and to some extent alleviating the anguish of those who have been attacked, the judgment fires an important shot across the bows of those self-defined ‘citizen journalists’ who wrongly assume that they are beyond the limits of the law. Neither mode of publication nor strength of personal belief in accusations can be permitted to allow distressing allegations to be recklessly disseminated.
However, although the outcome of this case is without doubt highly satisfactory, one aspect of the legal process was less than satisfactory. At a very late stage the Jersey Evening Post was able to question the principle of the case being heard in private.
This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched.
In the event, the presiding judge’s reasons for hearing the case in camera were entirely sound, but, as he acknowledged in a parallel judgment also issued yesterday, justice must be as open and transparent as possible. It is therefore clear that the opportunity to challenge court secrecy should be available before a court sits rather than when it has concluded its deliberations – even if there are those in authority who might feel that the latter is sometimes more convenient. End

I'm leaving the legal ins and outs of this court case to Stuart Syvret to do if he so wishes. I have no doubt he will have plenty to say and put the record straight on some of the reporting.


But let us look at this editorial. The first bit that jumps out at me is this.


"However, although the outcome of this case is without doubt highly satisfactory, one aspect of the legal process was less than satisfactory. At a very late stage the Jersey Evening Post was able to question the principle of the case being heard in private.

This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched."

On the 18th September 2012 Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming made a speech in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege. During this speech he said:
"Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done."

Now, what is simply incredible, is that on the 20th September 2012, two days after John Hemmings speech, the JEP Editorial wrote this:

Allegations without substance

Thursday 20th September 2012,


JOHN Hemming, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, represents a Birmingham constituency. You could, however, be forgiven for imagining that he has a seat in our own States Assembly.

Why? Because he seems to be at least as concerned about what may or may not have happened in Jersey as he is about affairs in his own backyard.

In the House of Commons earlier this week Mr Hemming, a political ally of former Senator Stuart Syvret, asserted that this Island is utterly corrupt and a hotbed of conspiracies and cover-ups. We have, of course, heard all this before, but the one thing that is consistently missing from these allegations is any sort of proof that would stand up to serious scrutiny.

All sorts of wild accusations about the Island and the supposed perfidy of its authorities fly about on the internet – but so do reports of flying saucers and alien abductions.

It is also worth pointing out that if many of these allegations were published in this newspaper it would very likely find itself in court facing a series of libel actions – which would be indefensible through lack of supportive evidence. But the bloggers who are responsible for defaming all and sundry online have little to fear on this score because potential litigants realise that they are men of straw incapable of paying any damages awarded against them.

Meanwhile, given that the UK has an explicit and well recognised duty to ensure the good governance of the Channel Islands, does Mr Hemming really believe that successive governments of various political hues have turned a blind eye to the scandals that he claims to detect? Perhaps he believes that the massive cover-up he is so eager to expose extends all the way to the UK’s corridors of power.End


What has happened up at the Jersey Evening Post? Have they got memory loss? They can't even remember that they knew then didn't know then knew again and at the last moment  thought oh god we had better get something in damn quick because we will look bad if we don't because of freedom to report and all that nonsense. This is simply a joke - a complete and utter joke. I reported on this rubbish back in September 2012 and laid down a challenge to the JEP to put up or shut up. Me the blogger and my evidence against their editors in a BBC Studio in Jersey. Head to Head. They declined. Yes, they declined to go head to head with a citizen journalist. 
The paper is slowly dying. With failing sales it keeps pumping out this utter garbage thinking the people will keep lapping it like they have for decades. As with every passing year the Internet with it's independent journalists will move forward and keep on getting stronger. The challenge I laid down can be read here.

I have no idea what has been achieved by this court case apart from the lawyers involved looking at property portfolios from exotic far away places. The JEP knew exactly what was going on a year ago but these clowns thought it was a conspiracy theory. I take it they must have a judgement because of the simple reason no one was allowed to know that this case was going on. 

I will leave the court case and its implications to Stuart Syvret. 

Rico Sorda 

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Citizen Media and Proud




61 comments:

Anonymous said...

"THEY FEAR THE INTERNET. THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE AND HAS NO WISH OF RETURNING"

What Genie?
The JEP comment is right, citizens media needs to be policed. You cannot have people being accused of criminal activity without a trial, its against Human Rights.

Jacques M F Chartier said...

My thoughts entirely Rico. The jep write rubbish.

rico sorda said...

You should also listen to this regarding Syvret, Hemming and the secret court case everyone knew about apart from the JEP who thought it was a conspiracy theory.

http://thejerseyway.blogspot.com/2012/11/bbc-radio-jersey-interviews-blogers.html

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely galling.

It will not stand the test of much time, however. Jersey has rather limited feudalistic control outside of a few square miles. Surely this is designed to punish and further threaten Stuart, to legitimize the 8 million spent demonizing him, and to attempt to silence his right to truthful free speech and expression of conscience.

"A ROYAL Court judgment published yesterday spelled out an important message: bloggers can be barred from publishing scurrilous, distressing and damaging allegations on the internet."

Substitute the word "truth" for "allegations" and you make that statement accurate. All this is about, absolutely all, is the protection of the government's mouthpiece (msm) rights to publish scurrilous, distressing and damaging untruths about people like Stuart Syvret, Graham Power, Trevor and Shona Pitman and Lenny Harper without any journalistic truth interfering. Jersey wants this right to destroy whomever it chooses, and it wants to deny the right of citizens and elected officials alike, to tell the truth in any public interest which challenges demonstrable government lies, lies which serve only to destroy the best interests of the real public. End of.

Elle

rico sorda said...

"You cannot have people being accused of criminal activity without a trial, its against Human Rights."

One of them did have a trial. Got find £400 quid for telling a family that one of the other accused was going to come around and kill them. I kid you not. It's true.

rs

Anonymous said...

Commenter at 11:08, it is against human rights to deny citisens the right to address Jersey's refusal to properly investigate and prosecute criminal activity. That's what the blog in this case was about.

rico sorda said...

Elle,

You have hit the nail on the head.

They just don't see it yet but the writing is on the wall. The world is changing very quickly outside of our 9x5 yet these dinosaurs think the incoming meteorite is just a large sponge ball.

rs

Anonymous said...

Well Rico, I'd say you nailed it right there. They give no impression of international awareness at all, despite playing an outsized role in international financial affairs. It can't end well for them. They can't stop the Leah McGrath Goodmans, although they've tried their terrible best. It seems likely that several outside journos will pick up the Jersey human rights banner and reach even more people until middle Jersey figures out the truth.

Elle

Anonymous said...

"They just don't see it yet but the writing is on the wall. The world is changing very quickly outside of our 9x5 yet these dinosaurs think the incoming meteorite is just a large sponge ball."

Jersey is just behind with its legislation compared to the UK and other places. Laws are coming in for certain over here which will make it a criminal offence to harass people online by using a Blog.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, an important posting.

One of the things that leaps out at any thinking person, is the role the JEP have played in burying the truth - in ignoring the facts that were available 12 months ago - and now, once again, lying to their readers.

There was nothing "hidden" about the existence of this case. As you rightly point out, not only did John Hemming MP speak of it, and expose the key facts, in the House of Commons, last year - but the JEP actually reported upon him doing so, and attempted to denigrate him for protecting the public interest.

Now - about a year later - the Jersey Evening Post exhibits such undisguised contempt for their readers, they lie to them, assuming they won't remember that the key facts were public a year ago - yet the JEP failed to do a single thing to seek to report the case.

And for the record - I can state categorically that not once - not so much as a single contact - has been made to me by the JEP or the BBC in Jersey during the last year in which they sought to ask me any questions about the matter spoken of in parliament by John Hemming.

It's not so much the position of the JEP which is laughable - but more so that of people who continue to buy it.

Perhaps some people just enjoy being lied to?

Stuart

Anonymous said...

These secret court rulings against human rights in Jersey will be seen for what they are. This isn't unrelated to the now notorious detention, twelve hour confinement and withdrawn Visa of that highly credentialed international journalist. Taken together in context, this has the potential to become a cause for human rights defenders outside of the 9 by 5.

Anonymous said...

Senator offers to look into MPs concerns 26 sept 2012 This is Jersey

Tom Gruchy said...

And who shall police the "press"?
Recent events in the UK clearly demonstrated that there is no effective restraint over any branch of the media. In fact, the scandals at the BBC keep on coming and more and more "professionals" from the national newspapers are heading for jail along with several senior police officers and "private eyes" who gave information illegally. The breaking of Data Protection laws were the least of their alleged and/or proven crimes.
Yet the call for restraint of the "accredited media" within Jersey is virtually nil. There is no attempt to bring in local regulation or a public complaints body - BUT the absurd call for the restraint and censoring of bloggers remains lodged with the States and will surely be revived now that this case is in the bag.

Anonymous said...

I hope Stuart does not mind me pasting his latest comment here.

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...
Oh, don't worry. Don't make the mistake of relying upon the JEP for facts.

The purported "court" has spent the last 12 months ordering - and ordering - me to remove material from the blog - and granted "injunctions" to that effect.

Knowing perfectly well this supposed "judicial" action is an ultra vires exercise - I've taken precisely zero notice of them.

As I've written elsewhere, the administration of "justice" in Jersey is simply a "confidence game" - a racket - a "Potemkin village."

Quite plainly - the current judicial system and structure and processes in Jersey are simply not lawful. Not even vaguely.

So increasingly obvious is that fact, even London has had to secretly face up to it.

So - what was - literally - the bottom-line of this "judgment"?

Here you go: -

"As I believe the Representors accept, albeit with reluctance, there is little to be achieved by their committing further funds to the attempts which have been made to impress on Mr Syvret the need to obey court orders. Accordingly, I have decided, with some reluctance, that no further action should be taken."

Don't fail to recognise the gravity and implications of that.

Essentially - I have faced-down the corrupt racket that is the Crown "judicial" function in Jersey - and they swallowed.

They blinked, and lost their nerve.

They had to haul me off to prison again - for criticising the government and the government's criminals; an eventuality I'm forever ready for. But they bottled it.

The conflicted, corrupt racket that is Jersey's Royal Court lost its nerve - messed its pants - and ran away.

Naturally - I'm going to have a good deal more to say about this, so watch this space.

And understand this - this entirely - madly ill-judged - civil abuse of the Data Protection Law against me during the last 12 months has succeeded in one - and only one thing; namely providing yet another rock-solid - dramatically evidenced - ground of claim against the Privy Council, Crown and Secretary of State for Justice in London.

An especially useful - and evidenced - and immensely damaging ground - given all that it shows of state-abuse of power - and overt, oppressive, judicial misfeasance in the British Crown Dependency of Jersey.

Stuart

Anonymous said...

'NO FURTHER ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON FLOUTING OF ORDERS'

The Royal Court has 'reluctantly ruled that no further action should be taken against Stuart Syvret because of his repeated flouting of orders of court.

I look forward to hearing Mr Syvret explain this part. What did the prolonged court case achieve? It looks from the outside that it achieved nothing. As an aside I would say it probably affected the jersey taxpayer more than anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Rico, just to highlight a couple of points from the September 2012 JEP article. The article states that if the JEP had published these un-evidenced allegations, it would have been sued for libel.

First, how can the JEP author possibly know that there is no evidence to support the allegations? He can't, so he just made that bit up. It's critical for the JEP agenda to portray Syvret as a deranged liar - which he isn't - so they just make stuff up, and continue to peddle the lie that there isn't any evidence to support his claims.

Second, isn't it ironic that the author asserts that the JEP would have been sued for libel. Not prosecuted for data protection offences, mark you, but sued for libel. Oops!

Arguably the most troubling precedent established by this whole fiasco is the utterly unlawful extension of data protection law to be used as a tool of state censorship.

Libel is a civil offence between two private parties, and the remedy for a person who believes he has been libelled is to sue for defamation in a civil court. The state plays no role in such proceedings, and if the defamed person believe the defamer has no assets against which to make a claim, too bad.

Yet the Jersey establishment, in its deranged war on Syvret, threw-away centuries of legal certainty in order to try to get him by any means possible.

So perhaps we can look forward to a JEP editorial thundering about the unlawful extension of statutory data protection law into a civil defamation matter? After all, as a 'news'paper, this should be a matter of grave concern to editor, should it not?

Andy Sibcy said...

Dear Stuart,
I tried to ring you twice yesterday on your mobile for comment on the recently released judgments, but to no avail. My number is 611636.
Best wishes,
Andy Sibcy.
JEP.

rico sorda said...

This is the challenge that a so called conspiracy theorist blogger laid down to the JEP in September 2012. The JEP is a laughing stock. Not fair on the people who work their as I have no doubt that given the chance they would up their levels but the buck stops with the editors simple as that.




From: rico sorda ;
To: jep ; jon gripton ; Chris Rayner- Jersey 
Cc: ben queree 
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 11:53
Subject: Live Debate

Dear Editors 

I refer to your leader that appeared in the  Jersey Evening Post ("JEP") on Thursday 20th September.

I noticed the leader was not backed up with any evidence. 

The Jersey bloggers have been leaked many documents over the years. We have painstakingly exposed the Child Abuse Cover-up.

I will cut straight to the chase here.  

I believe the JEP has walked straight into its very own Hillsborough moment.  By this I mean that the JEP replicates the actions of the Sun newspaper in the UK and its role in the Hillsborough cover up.  I do not need to go into the finer details of the foregoing at this present moment, but what I find fascinating is the handling by the JEP of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation and subsequent fall-outs.  


I am of the opinion that the JEP has towed the establishment line in only telling one side of the story.  It has failed to take a proactive approach in bringing to light the magnitude of evidence, which has been produced and published online by the Jersey bloggers.  You have not demanded answers from our Chief Minister as to why we have had such a long delay in bringing forth a Committee of Enquiry in decades long child abuse.  Nor have you even been proactive in helping survivors of this child abuse to find closure.  By this I mean taking a long hard investigative look at what has gone on.  It is simply ridiculous to call Jersey's investigative bloggers "conspiracy theorists", so ridiculous in fact that I believe the time has come for me, together with the editors of the JEP, to have a live discussion on BBC Radio Jersey where we can see who are the conspiracy theorists, who is able to quote from hard evidential documentation and allow people to phone in and have their say. 

I am prepared to put up.  Are you?

I am sure BBC Radio Jersey would be able to offer us the platform to have this out in the open.  We all know that John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP, used UK parliamentary privilege to highlight the alleged failings in the Jersey system of government.  I thank him for this.  I love my island dearly, but I do not like the role the JEP is playing in it. 

I hope you and the BBC will agree to this suggestion and, so as to be as transparent and open as possible, here is a list of some of the evidence I shall be referring to.


The Napier Report, The Met "Interim" Report, The 4 ACPO Reports , The Warcup Letter, The Failings of Wiltshire and their Report, The Affidavits of Lenny Harper & Graham Power, The Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Report and findings into the BDO Report, Graham Powers 62,000 word statement to Wiltshire, the suspension review papers of Graham Power and the utter shambles of Home Affairs Minister, Senator, Ian Le Marquand.


This is just a selection of the documentation I will be referring to


Look forward to a prompt reply


Kind Regards


Rico Sorda 


http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/
Citizen Investigator

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

If ever there was a case of "allegations without substance" the JEP has AGAIN demonstrated it. The JEP try to convince its readers that it never knew about the (not so) secret court case when it is clear that it did. But what struck me the most from their desperate Editorial was the smell of fear and their realisation that Bloggers are the trusted source of information on this island.

One doesn't need to look far to discover the quality of the JEP's "JOURNALISM".

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Perhaps Andy Sibcy could tell us when he first learnt of this (not so) secret court case and why he didn't contact Stuart BEFORE the article was published?

rico sorda said...

We all have a responsibly on how we run our blogs. This goes with everyday life. I'm not responsible for other peoples blog. If anyone has a problem then you go to Emma Martins, data protection commissioner.

rs

rico sorda said...

So is libel finished in Jersey? Emma will need a bigger budget for her office at this rate.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico, your letter to the JEP was brilliant. They must see the writing on the wall. Jersey has invested millions in taxpayer funds only to fail to silence Stuart's blog which has logged nearly a million readers. Of course people continue to leak evidence to you and VFC, because you are more trustworthy than any of the main stream media. Fewer Jersey people pay attention to the JEP or any of the local so-called state media and no one outside reads the JEP, so their influence is limited to deluding only that small number who will make themselves believe anything except the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Well I don't know about Emma Martin's office, but I can picture her calling her father to ask for more advice. She admitted to seeking his help to shut down the Stuart Syvret Blog before. As of today, Syvret has still taken nothing down. Score a win for free speech.

rico sorda said...

Like I have said in my main posting I will be leaving the court case and it's specifics to Stuart Syvret. The implications of the case were very serious and it is to stuarts credit that he faced them down.

Where were they left to go with this case? It was dead in the water along time ago. Send him to prison or end it with a face saving exercise.

Shame Emma Martins and Co weren't so keen on closing down a most vile blog that could only be best described as a child abusers safe haven. But this is Jersey. This is what we are dealing with. Decades upon decades of decadence and hubris.

This is my blog. I post under my name. I moderate it. I do the best I can. I thank the JEP for taking the time to read it as they surely must if i'm to be described as a conspiracy theorist. They have failed the people of jersey miserably over the decades.

But worst of all they failed the victims of horrific abuse.

rs

Anonymous said...

Rico has nailed the Jersey Evening Post for lying to their readers by pretending it knew nothing about the secret court case when it was reported on BY THEM a year ago.

Anonymous said...

Stuart has been ordered to pay the costs of the four according to the JEP.

I thought the costs came from the data protection budget?

Anonymous said...

Andy Sibcy JEP'

''The press were not notified that the hearings were taking place and at no time were the press given the opportunity to challenge decisions to hold them in secret.''

When exactly did the editor Chris Bright raise serious concerns. When was the JEP court case to defend media's rights?

What sort of opportunity or notification was the editor waiting for, was it an ok from the States of Jersey to report one side what stopped them going to Mr Syvret and questioning his evidence.? And the veracity
of a super injunction being taken through the data protection office.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight. On the 20th Sept 2012 the jep say.............

"n the House of Commons earlier this week Mr Hemming, a political ally of former Senator Stuart Syvret, asserted that this Island is utterly corrupt and a hotbed of conspiracies and cover-ups. We have, of course, heard all this before, but the one thing that is consistently missing from these allegations is any sort of proof that would stand up to serious scrutiny."

And on the 5th Sept 2013 they say.....

""However, although the outcome of this case is without doubt highly satisfactory, one aspect of the legal process was less than satisfactory. At a very late stage the Jersey Evening Post was able to question the principle of the case being heard in private. This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched."

This is beyond parody. It shows the contempt they have for their readers. There is a possibility they they forgot the 2012 editorial. I know jersey has only one newspaper and this shows up just what a problem this is for you in the beautiful island of jersey.

Good posting.

Anonymous said...

If the JEP are such experts on blog sites how come they never knew about the secret court case? It has been all over the blogs from the beginning of it! That's as well as the JEP reporting on it a year ago themselves! LIES LIES AND DAMN LIES!

Anonymous said...

When is Andy Sibcy going to answer the questions (above) from VFC?

Deputy Trevor Pitman said...

Reference the Jep.

As one small example. When Shona and Geoff Southern were being fitted up by the Jersey 'Law' Office for asisting elderly and/or disabled constituents to complete an application form to request a postal vote I met up with Andy Sibcy at the Greek cafe in the Royal Square.

I showed him proof - that dragged out of William Bailhache by me in the States - that whilst Shona and Geoff were being prosecuted in an Establishment witch hunt non JDA candiates who had breached the same ridiculous law were NOT being pursued by Bailhache.

This included a candiate whose offence was actually wrongly initially charged against Geoff Southern. There was also the police transcipts showing the Establishment candidate in the same St. helier No 2 district described in the document as having a beard and a three letter name beginning with R.

Did the Andy and the JEP do what any professional journalist/newspaper would do and blow these malicious prosecutions out of the water? No, of course they didn't. They kept quiet even though the truth and evidence was there.

Say no more.

rico sorda said...

9th October 2012

Remember the JEP a reporter sitting in a little booth at every states sitting so one wonders how they missed this.




2.10 Deputy M. Tadier of the Chief Minister regarding the use of super-injunctions in Jersey:

Following claims by a U.K. M.P. that 4 individuals have obtained an injunction under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005, to prevent allegations being made about them on a blog, is the Chief Minister aware of super injunctions being used in Jersey and, if so, has taxpayers’ money been used to deal with cases under the Data Protection Law which might otherwise be pursued as civil libel and defamation cases?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

I am unaware of any super injunctions having been obtained in Jersey, however I can confirm that it is part of the function of the Data Protection Commissioner to assist members of the public to enforce their rights under the law.

The Bailiff:

Just before we get to supplementary questions, I had to consider very carefully whether to allow this question under Standing Order 10(10). I did so because it raised the question of spending of public money, but I must emphasise all those who ask supplementary questions that because the case referred to as being heard in private, it would be improper and a breach of Standing Orders to refer to the names of any of the parties or the details of the case.

2.10.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

I take that direction, Sir. The point is, we do not know of any cases, by their very nature, if they are private anyway. So my question to the Chief Minister is does he acknowledge that there is perhaps a departure from - and there is a very delicate line to be had here - the right of journalists, whether they be bloggers or in another form, to be able to report accurately on individuals? There is currently a recourse, which is called defamation and libel, which can be taken as a civil case, but as soon as a case such as super injunctions, which necessarily have to be heard in private, are used, there is a case for abuse. Will the Chief Minister give his comments on that?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I am not sure that in question time under Standing Orders I am asked for my opinion on matters but obviously if you are allowing the question to stand, the Deputy is right. Of course it is difficult. We enjoy a free media and they report on matters as they see fit within the law, and that is as it should be. It is for this Legislature to amend and change laws if they think that is necessary and it is for the court system to interpret them in due course should there be a dispute.

rico sorda said...

2.10.5 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I think if our courts observe human rights and everyone is entitled to a fair trial under that… which is clearly not the case as I can demonstrate, in fact the evidence is all there. What I would like to ask is how can we have this absurdity when all 4 individuals have been named already and their names are in the public domain? How can we have these secret court sessions? The next one, which is going to take place on 5th November, taxpayers’ money is being used and nobody knows what it is being used for or how, to support people, one who is a convicted petty criminal, convicted in the courts in March 2011…

The Bailiff:

Deputy, I have already given guidance that there is to be no reference to the details.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

That is not the details. That is the background of the people who are getting secret hearings.

The Bailiff:

Deputy Pitman, you will obey please the directions of the Chair.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, thank you, Sir. You have reminded me how right my first question was.

The Bailiff:

I am sorry?

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I said, Sir, you have reminded me how right my first question was about how the courts are a law unto themselves. Public money being spent and we cannot find out...

The Bailiff:

Please confine yourself to a question rather than comments.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

That is my question, Sir. How can we see what money is being spent? We know it is being spent and yet as the leader of this Government, the Chief Minister will not stand up and show some leadership. Why not?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

As I quite clearly indicated right at the start, it is part of the function of the Data Protection Commissioner to assist members of the public to enforce their rights under that law. If the Deputy disagrees with that and does not believe that that should be a function of the Data Protection Commissioner, then of course he can bring forward a proposition which would seek to amend it, but I would suspect that he would have to provide good evidence to suggest that that was not being used appropriately. I have no evidence to suggest anything other than it is being used appropriately. As with regard to his opening comments and his final supplementary question, if the Deputy is so certain of the facts that he says he has, then he should, I suggest, either contact the police or speak further to his lawyer. It cannot be right that in this Assembly, a parliamentary privilege is abused in the way that I fear that we are potentially doing so today. [Approbation]

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The Minister is misleading the House. Parliamentary privilege exists just for this reason. It is not abused and it is for people when the Minister will not do his job because he is a coward.

The Bailiff:

Deputy, please withdraw that comment. You know that you are not entitled to say that about another Member.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Completely lacking in backbone then, Sir. I will remove the coward bit.

The Bailiff:

You will remove the coward and you will apologise.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Apologise for what, Sir?

The Bailiff:

For calling him a coward.

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am very sorry. The Minister is not a coward, but he does lack complete political backbone.

rico sorda said...

2.10.6 Deputy M. Tadier:

I accept that this is a very complicated issue and this allegation or suggestion was made in the U.K. by a U.K. M.P. who said that with the assistance of the Jersey Government, a super injunction had been obtained against, let us say, an individual in Jersey. He was very surprised that it had been undertaken under the Data Protection Act of all things, as he said. Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that the way in which the Data Protection Act is being used here is a departure from the norm and that is why it is of concern to the U.K. M.P. and to local M.P.s? Will he also comment on the fact... I noticed that the Minister said it is up to politicians to change and amend the laws if it is necessary, but now do we bring changes to a law if we and the Chief Minister, as he says, are completely unaware whether super injunctions are even used in Jersey. How do we change the fact that super injunctions should not be used if we do not even know if they are being used in Jersey in the first place? That is ultimately the question I would like the Chief Minister to answer.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

For Members, if they believe the principle of such things should not be used in our jurisdiction to come forward with amendments to law to ensure that they cannot if they are. I have forgotten now what the Deputy’s opening question was.

Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I give clarification, perhaps, to the Minister? In order to know whether or not we want to stop super injunctions, we need to know whether they exist. There is no point in bringing an amendment to the House to change something which does not exist. So can the Minister suggest to Members, how can we as Members for the greater public know whether or not super injunctions are being used and possibly abused in Jersey so that we can know whether or not to ask questions and to amend that, which must be the right and even the duty of any elected States Member.

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I think the Deputy asked me in his opening question, it just came back to me, with regard to our law and the comments of a United Kingdom Member of Parliament. I was, of course, surprised to hear him say that because our law is based on the European Data Protection Law and I imagine that United Kingdom’s law is likewise based and therefore would have similar provisions. So I am surprised that that is being made as a peculiarity of our law. I am not certain that that is the case. It is about principle. We should not be talking about specific cases in this Legislature but if Members believe that a principle is correct or incorrect then they should come forward and amend the law appropriately.

Anonymous said...

the judgment fires an important shot across the bows of those self-defined ‘citizen journalists’ who wrongly assume that they are beyond the limits of the law. Neither mode of publication nor strength of personal belief in accusations can be permitted to allow distressing allegations to be recklessly disseminated.

The above quote from the article i portrays any accusations as a personal belief ignoring evidence bloggers publish to support those beliefs.

rico sorda said...

Would it not be the case that a Libel case would have been heard in an open court where the evidence would have been aired for all to hear and report on. So why use Data Protection and a closed court. Surely the individuals, if so aggrieved, would have wanted to clear their names of slander in an open court.

Has this been a backdoor action to attack and close down the blogs who have been showing up the jersey apparatus for many years now. There are many questions that still need answering and I know Stuart Syvret will be addressing these over the coming days.

The blogs are not going away. The toxic entity know that they are trying to stop the tide from coming in. The world has moved on. It doesn't operate around the welfare of a feudal elite.

What happened to simple deformation?

rs

Anonymous said...

Would data protection fund Mr Syvret or bloggers for that matter who could feel the article in the JEP has caused them substantial distress and damage?.



Anonymous said...

"would have wanted to clear their names of slander in an open court."

I do not believe it is up to people being accused on any unregulated blog to 'clear their names' but it is up to the blogger to take their evidence to the Police if there is a case to answer and this is what happens in Media.

Anonymous said...

5/9/2014 Jersey Evening Post.

'' This question would have been put before proceedings began but for the fact that the newspaper, and indeed the great majority of Islanders, were unaware that the action had been launched."

Oh really. Had to check its not April fools day.

Anonymous said...

With all the questions that have been asked in the states assembly about the super injunction case you have to ask who is the political reporter of the Jersey Evening Post and why he/she has never contacted Mr Syvret?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Stuart Syvret, Super-Injunction and State Media PART 1

rico sorda said...

"It is also worth pointing out that if many of these allegations were published in this newspaper it would very likely find itself in court facing a series of libel actions – which would be indefensible through lack of supportive evidence."

The above is from the JEP editorial of 2012. You see, even they would expect to face Libel Actions not Data Protection charges.

rs

Anonymous said...


Rico, you said of the JEP, "You see, even they would expect to face Libel Actions not Data Protection charges."

Too bad they did't try publishing it, though. Of course you were pointing out the fact that it should have been a libel case, if challenged. But just think of the implications of it as a libel case! The JEP would have forced to prove the allegations were true, and that might have required an alliance with Stuart. Real journalism allied with whistleblowers in holding government to account? Nah, couldn't happen.

Elle

Anonymous said...

I am so very, very sorry I voted for Gorst at the last election, I will not make the same mistake again. What is it with this man? that he is incapable of standing up to the 'almighty'!!! get some balls Ian and start being a Chief Minister, that means you make the decisions, hell like all pollies you will be gone eventually but history will judge you and so far it ain't looking good.

Ian Evans said...

My most important ever posting, and just for the survival of HUMANKIND Wake the hell up sheep!!!

Anonymous said...

"A ROYAL Court judgment published yesterday spelled out an important message: bloggers can be barred from publishing scurrilous, distressing and damaging allegations on the internet."

Is that really what the Royal Court stated!

If so, I guess the it could also have clarified, that "bloggers" (whatever the legal definition of that means), can publish the truth, knowing there is evidence to support such allegations, no matter how distressing that may be to the person/s concerned.

Nobody can be barred from publishing anything, they can however be charged with Libel.

Surely, if there was a geninue case of Libel against Mr Syvret, it would have been actioned in open court, so those who claimed such Libel could openly show they had been wronged. Surely to have proved such a case in open court would have been the biggest goal of those seeking to clear their names.

Whereas, these claims, brought at no cost to those who seeked to claim so, where, as the Court decided, obviously not worth every effort:-

"The Royal Court has 'reluctantly ruled that no further action should be taken against Stuart Syvret because of his repeated flouting of orders of court."

So, a big 1-0 to Syvret, that has reportably cost the tax payers circa £8m. Which surely, must be because someone who is considered to have a lot of power, must have pushed the self destruct button!

Anonymous said...

Hear Hear. So far, history's judgement is not looking very good for a lot of Jersey officials, political, judicial, appointed or in civil service. You bloggers may save the reputation of Jersey by proving there was notable concern about the lawlessness and the human rights abuses.

Anonymous said...

The reported 8 million pounds spent of tax payers money should surely be as much a concern, as the case itself.

For the life of me I cannot envisage how 8 million could be spent. I would like to see a breakdown of cost to the last penny

Anonymous said...

Are we really to believe Mr Gorst excuse that if a states member believes the data protection law is not being applied correctly in Jersey they should seek to bring a proposition to change it? Is that an answer or a cop out?

Red flag signal. Mr Pitman question was on the money.

I believe Mr Gorst has got into game playing.

rico sorda said...


This is from Jan 2013 in the States of Jersey. Just what was the JEP political reporter doing?


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

Will the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in this case, explain whether the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can be used, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog? If so, how this is done?

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice. That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another. The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request. If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter. Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice. The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties.

2.13.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Solicitor General confirm whether or not personal data necessarily needs to be defamatory when displayed on a blog, or even in any other type of media, for it to be requested to be taken down or can it simply consist of personal information? For example, somebody being named purely factually such as saying that Deputy Tadier is a Deputy in St. Brelade. Could I request for that information to be taken down or would that be ridiculous?

The Solicitor General:

There is a threshold test which I did refer to in my first answer but I repeat now. The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress to that individual. That is the test.

rico sorda said...


This is from Jan 2013 in the States of Jersey. Just what was the JEP political reporter doing?


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

Will the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in this case, explain whether the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 can be used, rather than a civil suit, to request the removal of references to an individual on a website or blog? If so, how this is done?

Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General:

Article 10 of the Data Protection Law provides an individual with a right to issue the Controller of Personal Data that features on a website with a written notice. That notice can require the removal of personal data that is said to cause or is likely to cause substantial damage or stress to that individual or another. The controller of the data, on receipt of notice, has 21 days to decide whether or not to comply with the request. If there is compliance that of course is the end of the matter. Otherwise, the individual can then commence civil action to seek in terms enforcement of the notice. The Royal Court will then decide the issue between the parties.

2.13.1 Deputy M. Tadier:

Will the Solicitor General confirm whether or not personal data necessarily needs to be defamatory when displayed on a blog, or even in any other type of media, for it to be requested to be taken down or can it simply consist of personal information? For example, somebody being named purely factually such as saying that Deputy Tadier is a Deputy in St. Brelade. Could I request for that information to be taken down or would that be ridiculous?

The Solicitor General:

There is a threshold test which I did refer to in my first answer but I repeat now. The test is whether the data is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial stress to that individual. That is the test.

rico sorda said...

2.13.2 Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The Solicitor General referred to an order, I think it was 21 days, when people would have to remove it from a website. Is there anything that limits that in regard to someone waiting 21 days, taking something offensive down and then putting it back up? That certainly used to happen on a website attacking people, certainly States Members. The website is now defunct, I believe. Is there any way to combat that?

The Solicitor General:

It seems to me that if a controller of data is served with a notice requiring that controller to take down certain data and after the 21-day period at any point they continue to publish that data, the person who issues the notice is then entitled to go to court to seek enforcement.

2.13.3 Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Yes, the Solicitor General has been talking about the right of individuals to take someone to court for ignoring the notice. Could he explain the powers of the Data Protection Commissioner and explain when she would step into the place of individuals in taking someone to court?

The Solicitor General:

I would not ordinarily expect the Data Commissioner to step into the shoes of a particular individual. The individual would sue in their own name, so to speak. It is right to say that the Commissioner can in certain cases provide assistance to the person who is suing.

2.13.4 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Can the Solicitor General tell us in what way can he or she give assistance? Is it financial assistance in paying for the court or is it just advice?

The Solicitor General:

The Data Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual in a case where (a) there is an issue of general public importance that arises and (b) that a matter has a reasonable prospect of success. As I say, in those particular circumstances, the Commissioner can provide financial assistance to an individual.

2.13.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

Would the Solicitor General care to comment on the comparison with the U.K. where I understand that certainly historically and up until recently, the Information Officer - the equivalent of our Data Protection Officer in Jersey - has been very reluctant to get involved with cases to do with defamation, where people have been perhaps defamed and it has been for the courts to step in. Also, will the Solicitor General comment on when this practice, if it has become common or used in Jersey, came into place, and what is the line between an ordinary civil libel case?

The Solicitor General:

I think it is helpful to look at what was the purpose of the Data Protection Law introduced by States Members. The purpose of the law, as I see it, is that it was designed to protect individuals from the misuse of their private information. In particular, where that misuse results in substantial stress or harm, the law sees fit to give that individual a remedy. So I do not see it necessarily at all being whether or not something could also fall into a defamation case. In my view, the better view is the issue whether or not the Data Commissioner is discharging his or her duties properly and promoting the function of the law, which is to require data controllers to manage data in a responsible manner.

rico sorda said...

Here are some previous postings I have done on the JEP's conspiracy theory "Super Injunction" in January of this year. The more I think about that editorial the more I believe that the JEP can actually see that the writing is on the wall for this defunct newspaper.

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-jersey-judicial-system-real-power.html

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-jersey-judicial-system-bailhache.html


http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-jersey-judicial-system-bailhache.html

http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-jersey-judicial-system-bailhache_30.html

Anonymous said...

Rico.

Perhaps Andy Sibcy could tell us when he first learnt of this (not so) secret court case and why he didn't contact Stuart BEFORE the article was published?

Still waiting for Andy Sibcy's reply..............................

Anonymous said...

On 13th August 2012 the four were granted an interim injunction by the court.

JEP ''Yesterday, Sir Charles Gray, who presided over the case, issued the Court's judgements, which set out the reasons why the injunction sought by the claimants had been granted''

According to the Attorney General in answer to a question from Deputy Higgings 4.43 A final injunction is one granted on the final determination of the issues between the parties. Any person subject to an injunction, interim or final, can appeal it to the court of appeal.

Between parties.

Have the court not compromised the integrity of Mr Syvrets lawful position?

Anonymous said...

Between parties. It would appear the only parties in agreement are the (4) and the court

Anonymous said...

If the four mentioned did not pay then who are the parties involved?

rico sorda said...

Perhaps Mr Syvret could help us with these points of interest.

rs

Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...

Rico, your commenters ask about appeals and the status of the "parties" to the supposed "court" case.

For example, one asks, "Have the court not compromised the integrity of Mr Syvret's lawful position?"

I'm not entirely sure I understand the questions, but the situation is this.

I am "appealing" against this purported "judgment" - and - plainly - I will be appealing on the primary ground on which I objected to the "court" in this case - namely, the "court", and the "judicial" apparatus of Jersey is not lawful - not Article 6 compliant - and consists of friends and appointees of expressly interested parties.

And - obviously - those facts apply to the court of appeal as well. Thus, not only has the Crown and UK failed to provide an Art. 6 compliant court of first instance - they have also failed to provide and Art. 6 compliant court of appeal.

Therefore - the case becomes most entertainingly useful when it gets to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. (And does so for more than just the obvious reasons.)

In respect of just who "the parties" are - the four individuals are - in law - clearly mere proxies. They are providing "cover" - behind which the state, the Crown - in this instance in the person of Emma Martins - can pursue state-repression against independent journalism and those who criticise the government.

That is the crystal-clear situation.

It is not lawful - and the fact that the court and the judge have gone along with this charade is, of itself, unambiguous evidence of actual bias.

It is not acceptable practice - and no respectable court would tolerate - a directly interested party - litigating through third-parties. Covert litigation - using proxies - using them as "front-men" - by a disguised party, is not acceptable in any respectable British jurisprudence.

But yet - that is plainly what we see in this case.

The real "party" against me here - are the Bailhache brothers, Michael Birt, Tim Le Cocq, Emma Martins - and, at base, the Crown, state, authority & power they have been permitted to hi-jack.

I will be addressing these points in more detail in my posting.

Stuart

Daniel said...

So we see from Rico's [postings above that Solicitor General Howard Sharp is in Hansard saying this:

<"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."b>

So this is what decides whether a given case under the Data Protection Act should succeed, and following on from that, whether the DP Office will support the bringing of such a case.

So ANYONE WHO IS UPSET at something written in a blog can now run along to Emma Martins and (if their face fits) bring an injunction / case to remove the upsetting words.

One of our politicians must ask: "(given the answer given by the SG . . .) does it matter if what has been written on a blog IS TRUE? This of course is an absolute defence in a libel case. It rather looks as if this new Law is a way round the truth defence. In other words the DP Commissioner has the power to stop ANY distressing truths being published - by anybody!

So freedom of speech, if this is the case, is dead in Jersey. I think the JEP should also watch out . . .

Please Monty or trevor, put this question.