Thursday, November 7, 2013

STUART SYVRET - A RECORDED MESSAGE INCASE OF IMPRISONMENT




DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER EMMA MARTINS

The JEP asked Emma Martins - " Whether further action would be taken against Mr Syvret or others who have named identified the four"


Mrs Martins replied " Every complaint we receive is dealt with in accordance with our statutory powers. The Royal Court judgement is clear, and the office of data protection commissioner notes that all of the applicants have been successful in winning the relief that they were seeking. This has been a difficult, complex and long-running case which has taken a real personal toll on the applicants. We are all accountable for what we write and say in the online environment  and that accountability applies equally to those who claim journalistic status - they also have to face the legal consequence arising from damage that they do and the lasting harm that they can cause during their actions. This judgement shows clearly that the laws that protect us in our everyday life also extend online. There will be no further comment from this office."End

STUART SYVRET









STUART SYVRET


IMPRISONED 


A RECORDED MESSAGE


SUPER INJUNCTION -AND THE  ABUSE OF THE DATA PROTECTION LAW


A matter of weeks before Stuart Syvret was imprisoned in regards to a Super Injunction and abuse of the Data Protection Law Team Voice recorded a video message that was only to published on his inevitable jailing.  We produce it below.

Here are some previous postings that will help readers with some research.




The above link has the Judgement from the court case.

Rico Sorda 

Team Voice

Part Time Investigative Journalist






37 comments:

Jacques said...

I wonder what part of that speech the haters do not understand. The truth will prevail.

Anonymous said...

An articulate well reasoned message from Mr Syvret that should send shivers down the spine of anybody who dares speak out against corruption in Jersey. What a hick-town redneck bunch they are who run the Island.

Anonymous said...

John Hemming has named the four people who are responsible for having Syvret jailed in his latest Early Day Motion. Will you be put in jail or have a superinjunction put on you if you published the EDM on here because your justice system is completely off the wall?

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The video recorded message could be easier dismissed if nobody else was highlighting, what looks to be, a corrupt and politicised, "justice" system. But as we know HE IS FAR FROM ALONE

Anonymous said...

Good luck Stuart,lots of good people backing you

Anonymous said...

I have written a letter to the Queen, we have a legal system that allows Judges to deal with cases having a huge conflict and a Canon Law that the Queen authorised. Syvret we are out there and we are fighting for a democracy, your work is not wasted not one second of it, believe me, we will get there.

Anonymous said...

Emma Martins we know why you are doing this, believe me we know......

Anonymous said...

Hang in their Stuart, we are doing what we can to get your voice heard, hang in there.

Anonymous said...

Is it not about time that we involved the EU Commission on the violation of Human Rights within Jersey as clearly the UK Queen and her government/Judiciary have no interest in upsetting its appointed Jersey officials who protect Jersey as its Tax haven.
A copy of Stuarts video message should be sent to EU Commissioner to highlight the fundamental breakdown of the Rule of Law here in the UK Crown dependency state of Jersey

rico sorda said...

We need people on the outside to help us spread the word about what is happening in Jersey. Call the UN, call anyone, but we need help. The Jersey Judiciary is a feudal big boys club who maintain their power in the courts.

Thank you for all the support.

rs

Anonymous said...

Call the UN ?

I think you'll find the UN won't have too much trouble recognising the concept of, and sanctions for, Contempt of Court.

The question is why you do ?

Anonymous said...

Stuart is exceptionally brave and the Jersey public are incredibly lucky to have him working on behalf of many child abuse victims and exposing the Jersey aparatus for what it is. It's a terrific personal cost to him and his endurance is incredible. One day enough of the public will wake up and smell the shit that is the Jersey ruling elite, their corruption and flawed systems that has allowed for Stuarts oppression by the state, along with Graham Powers and several others.

Anonymous said...


See House of Commons - Early Day Motion 685 - tabled by John Hemming MP on the 6th of November 2013:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/685

IMPRISONMENT OF EX-SENATOR STUART SYVRET IN JERSEY

That this House notes that Stuart Syvret who was previously elected as a senator in Jersey has been imprisoned for three months for making allegations on his blog about Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth, who had previously obtained a super-injunction against him under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; further notes that the use of this law would cover all allegations whether they are true or not; believes that this is a chilling affront to freedom of speech and that before someone could be imprisoned for making allegations it should be shown that the allegations made are not true; further notes that Jersey still does not have a system of private prosecution, nor does it have the facility to judicially review prosecutory decisions; recognises that this means if people who are friends with those in power have committed criminal acts it is impossible to have those issues considered in an open court and that it is clear that the state will move to imprison people for making allegations about criminal offences not being prosecuted whether or not this is true; further believes that the Government should not be so complacent about the institutional failures in Jersey; and calls for Ministers to review the situation and report to Parliament.

Jill Gracia said...

I think that, apart from Stuart being imprisoned for contempt of Court, it is also because he has contempt FOR the Court and this is thepoint he is trying to get across, along with his valid reasons why.

Realistically, how long can this farce go on? When he is released will he be subject to the same order, refuse to take the postings down and land up back in La Moye. This could go on ad infinitum.

Anybody, world-wide is able to access the posts, know who the 'Famous Four' are, and draw their own conclusions. The whole data protection farce over this seems to be a time-wasting and expensive exercise courtesy the taxpayer.

When will enough be enough?

Anonymous said...


Dear Rico,

It is far more than just a “big boys club” as you put it.

The monarchy actively hand-in-hand with the City of London Corporation in mutually beneficial collusion with the U.K. government maintains Jersey’s politicised-judiciary and semi-feudal government to keep this island as an offshore tax haven for big business interests.

U.K. big business is run by the City of London Corporation; even Parliament cannot overrule the City of London without damaging its own economy.

The City of London Corporation is a separate entity from the U.K., a state-within-a-state!

A country-within-a-country which is so financially powerful that no government (even the U.K.) is economically or financially able to challenge it.

A state-within-a-state which is the controlling hand within the sock-puppet of the U.K. and its sock-puppet monarchy.

Try and get the film “The UK Gold” screened in jersey Rico...

The UK Gold Website

In addition, perhaps Rico you may also try and establish communication with the Reverend William Taylor, his blog is located at:

Rev. William Taylor’s Blog

Póló said...

Jill

That point needs making again and again.

The proximate causes for any of Stuarts imprisonments are almost irrelevant.

He is testing a system he sees as feudal and corrupt and, so far, it is coming very badly out of it, in my view.

The real question is when will it either fall, or be blown, apart and replaced with one that is clean, civilised and in keeping with what citizens have a right to expect.




Wrb Guru said...

IMPRISONMENT OF EX-SENATOR STUART SYVRET IN JERSEY
Session: 2013-14

Date tabled: 06.11.2013
Primary sponsor: Hemming, John Sponsors: That this House notes that Stuart Syvret who was previously elected as a senator in Jersey has been imprisoned for three months for making allegations on his blog about Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth, who had previously obtained a super-injunction against him under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; further notes that the use of this law would cover all allegations whether they are true or not; believes that this is a chilling affront to freedom of speech and that before someone could be imprisoned for making allegations it should be shown that the allegations made are not true; further notes that Jersey still does not have a system of private prosecution, nor does it have the facility to judicially review prosecutory decisions; recognises that this means if people who are friends with those in power have committed criminal acts it is impossible to have those issues considered in an open court and that it is clear that the state will move to imprison people for making allegations about criminal offences not being prosecuted whether or not this is true; further believes that the Government should not be so complacent about the institutional failures in Jersey; and calls for Ministers to review the situation and report to Parliament.

Anonymous said...

Just after 6 pm this evening Channel ITV broke ranks....

They reported Mr Syvret's dilemma!?

rico sorda said...

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=508078

RS

Póló said...

Yes. All 14 seconds of it.

Anonymous said...

Having had a good look at this case the most obvious and logical questions to ask is why didn't the 4 go down the root of libel. It's a classic case of libel. How on earth did data protection and their commissioner get in on the act.

Anonymous said...


It is interesting to note Mr. Sorda, will the U.K. government now also be guilty of the offence of "Data Processing" the names of the four?

Early Day Motion 685 makes a complete mockery of this islands Judiciary and its false imprisonment of ex-Senator Stuart Syvret!

Anonymous said...


A researched article based on UK Government documents has just turned up on planetjersey.

A can of worms is now open, thanks to lack of understanding in passing a deformed, and not fit for purpose data protection law.

I quote from the Ministry of Justice from 2012 "A New Approach to the British Overseas Territories Justice assistance engagement plan":

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3467.msg58136.html#msg58136

Anonymous said...

Nice to read Jill's comment at 11:30. You always say the right things and say them so well, Jill.

From trying to keep up on all the Stuart-related social media, his political imprisonment is making a big stir. It doesn't seem as if this bent use of the Data Protection Law makes any sense to those watching in the UK. Clearly, many more new supporters for Stuart have come along only since Jersey imprisoned him THIS time, and it's not like the names of the Shady Four can ever be removed from the whole World Wide Web ...so how's that workin' out now for Emma Martins? Might she feel the twitching of a few strings being pulled to make her do this dance?

Anonymous said...



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.

Anonymous said...


The money came from according to an answer in the States by Gorst ( I may be wrong about Gorst ) a £7.5 million pound fund that funds police prosecutions and legal work etc. It is on Hansard if you wish to look about three months back.

Anonymous is right, Deputy Pitman put the cost in the millions and, the events regarding information and outcome are not required.The true cost to the taxpayer is required, on something so controversial.

Who will order the Comptroller and Auditor General, or a scrutiny panel to investigate expensive lawyer hours and other costs, over such a long a period ?

It is not in their interest that you know, with elections less than a year away.

Anonymous said...

The advocat that represented the famous 4 was Fraser( don't know his Christian name, but I know for a fact he was with Bailhache Labess before the change
Ans almost certain at that time William was there

Anonymous said...

The money came from according to an answer in the States by Gorst ( I may be wrong about Gorst ) a £7.5 million pound fund that funds police prosecutions and legal work etc. It is on Hansard if you wish to look about three months back.

Anonymous is right, Deputy Pitman put the cost in the millions and, the events regarding information and outcome are not required.The true cost to the taxpayer is required, on something so controversial.

Who will order the Comptroller and Auditor General, or a scrutiny panel to investigate expensive lawyer hours and other costs, over such a long a period ?

It is not in their interest that you know, with elections less than a year away.

Anonymous said...

I feel a great deal of sympathy for Emma Martins, like so many before her somehow she has managed to get herself embroiled in 'The Jersey Way' when she should have stood her ground against the powers that be she somehow buckled. How very very sad, I believe she is a married woman with children, perhaps this more than any other single point of reference should have been her guiding compass. Emma perhaps you need to look long and hard into the mirror and ask yourself this one simple question "what if these were my family, my children" I do strongly believe you have allowed your role as Data Protection Commissioner to be wholly compromised by allowing what should have been a straight forward LIBEL case with regard to Stuart Syvret. The allegations he made should have been fully tested in 'open' court and if found to be groundless than the four would have had grounds for Syvret to be(perhaps) imprisoned. The truth of all this is however, as we all know is far more conflicted in that the FOUR are more than likely guilty as hell but of course this would most definitely not want to be exposed in a truly open court hearing (not something found here in the Island0 as it could well 'bring down the government' Your time in office Emma as with all things in life will be but a mere blink but your legacy will be forever.So sad so very, very sad.

Anonymous said...

Re comment: "The money came from according to an answer in the States by Gorst ( I may be wrong about Gorst ) a £7.5 million pound fund that funds police prosecutions and legal work etc. It is on Hansard if you wish to look about three months back."

Does anyone know if that fund is fed by the Criminal Confiscation Slush Fund?

DenverGal said...

That is one astute comment by Anonymous at 6:55.

The same observation could apply to so many more who have sold their good family names for the sake of the publicly crumbling Jersey Way. Do they still have false hope of avoiding the hindsight and scrutiny of history? Physical evidence of horrific state-sponsored paedophilia might still be made to disappear from Jersey, and the mainstream state media may continue to cover up shameful stories as always, but the internet's published factual evidence and documents remain destined to fully replace the lies.

Anonymous said...

LOL. Just noticed Stuart's blog page views count is up to 998,140.

Anonymous said...


The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.The right applies to both criminal and civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights set out in Article 6 apply only in criminal cases.

The right to a fair trial is absolute and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The procedural requirements of a fair hearing might differ according to the circumstances of the accused.

The right to a fair hearing, which applies to any criminal charge as well as to the determination of civil rights and obligations, contains a number of requirements

There must be real and effective access to a court (although there are limited exceptions in the case of vexatious litigants, minors, prisoners etc). To be real and effective this may require access to legal aid.

There must be a hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors).

The hearing must be held within a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends on the complexity of the case, its importance, the behaviour of both the applicant and competent authorities, and the length of time between the conduct in question (i.e. when the offence was committed or contract breached etc) and when the trial takes place.

The applicant must have a real opportunity to present his or her case or challenge the case against them. This will require access to an opponent’s submissions, procedural equality and generally requires access to evidence relied on by the other party and an oral hearing.
The court of tribunal must give reasons for its judgment.

There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.

In criminal cases, there is a right to silence and a privilege against self-incrimination (although it may be possible to draw adverse inferences from suspects remaining silent).

An accused person must have the right to effective participation in their criminal trial. Except for strictly limited exceptions, an accused is entitled to be physically present at his or her hearing to give evidence in person and be legally represented.

The hearing and judgment must be made public. Hearings can, however, be held in private where:
it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate and in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or
it is in the best interests of a child; or
it is required for the protection of the private life of the parties ; or it is strictly necessary in special circumstances where publicity, in the court’s opinion, would prejudice the interests of justice.

Anonymous said...

Think it's more like 998,200 now. I never thought Jersey would allow his blog to have a million views, but it just might happen.

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Here's another terrible piece of interviewing by a BBC Journo, MP Hemming shows her up for what she is, just a Mouth Piece for the Government.

You and your readers can Listen HERE

TJW.

Anonymous said...

The trouble with people like EM is that they believe what they're doing is right. Utterly brainwashed, feel part of the ruling class, perfectly happy with what they're doing and totally unaware of the Big Picture.

Anonymous said...

By CCTV reporter Han Peng

Friday is China’s annual Journalists’ Day. And in recent years, the Internet and microblogging in particular, have expanded the field beyond professionals. In an era of citizen journalism, conventional media are feeling the pressure like never before. And some organizations are embracing, rather than resisting, change.
People’s Daily, China’s Number One Communist Party-run newspaper, has never been more popular and influential. Its secret, the agressive adoption of new media.

"The game has changed. Today with the help of the Internet and microblogs, everyone has become a journalist. If you don’t report it, others will." said People’s Daily staff.

The once revolutionary newspaper is once again in the middle of a revolution, this time, on the forefront of new media.

Last year, they set up a team of 9 devoted to a microblogging account on Sina weibo, with a modern office closely monitoring every single competitor. (big screen in the office monitoring signals of TV and other weibo accounts) They’re on the job nearly 24-7, and they now have more than 11 million followers.

"When breaking news happens, the first office it goes to is the new media office. Today, it’s an entire newspaper agency geared up to run the weibo account." said Wang Shuhuai, Chief Editor, New Media Office, People’s Daily. "The world of news is changing. You don’t have to be a professional to become a journalist. All you need is this, a smartphone, and you can report anything that happens around you. As we all worry if we will one day lose our jobs, some journalists say their profession has a unique advantage." said Han Peng, CCTV Headquarters.

This year, several high-profile cases involving the spread of rumors or false information have dominated new media. One example is Dong Liangjie. He posted a dozen tweets, all claiming that China’s drinking water was contaminated with contraceptives. His goal was to promote his water filtering products. He then asked a widely influential microblogger Xue Manzi to repost. The result was an online sensation, and panic among the public.

"The reason the People’s Daily has become so successful on Sina weibo is that it’s responsible for what it says. It combines the advantage of new media with its credibility established over the past decades." said Wang Shuhuai, Chief Editor, New Media Office, People’s Daily.

Today journalists are competing to be first and compelling, but the basic principle of the profession is still, and will always be, getting the facts right.