From Senator Stuart Syvret.
IN her letter of 18 August, Ruth Nelson seeks enlightenment concerning the UK’s role in the administration of justice in Jersey.
Mrs Nelson assumes our Island to be a democracy; it is – but only in the very loosest of senses. But that is by-the-by. The fundamental mistake she makes is in assuming that democracy and the good administration of justice are one and the same thing. They are not.
Mrs Nelson then goes on to assert that I have no mandate to be speaking with UK MPs. Wrong again, I’m afraid. I have a very unambiguous mandate to represent my constituents. In this context, the constituents I am representing happen to be abuse survivors, whose age-range runs from teenagers to people in their 70s.
When one has – as I have – had people who are grandmothers telephoning me in tears at having gone through the trauma of revisiting the abuses they suffered in order to give police statements – only to see justice being obstructed by Jersey’s ‘old boys’ network’ – both the mandate and the need to represent such people becomes very clear; very clear indeed.
Mrs Nelson also makes the mistake of relying on the Jersey Evening Post for her information. Austin Mitchell, MP, is not a party to the legal action which has been initiated. The action is, in fact, being taken by the Liberal-Democrat MP, John Hemming, and I.
To get to the heart of the matter, what a majority of States Members may think concerning justice for abuse survivors is, frankly, a complete irrelevancy.
Politicians operate in the political sphere and justice is administered in the realm of the courts. And as history has proven, there is a very good reason why the partisan world of politics has to be separated from the objective, fact-based administration of justice. Most respectable democracies recognised the need for ‘checks and balances’ a very long time ago, and embraced the concept of a separation of powers.
We in Jersey have no such separation, a state of affairs which would be dubious at the best of times. But when we are dealing with something as grave as decades of largely concealed child abuse, it is catastrophic. Our judiciary is led by the Bailiff – a man who has shown himself to be biased by his claim that ‘the real scandal’ was the bad publicity for Jersey. And our prosecution service is led by his brother, the Attorney General, a man who advises the Council of Ministers on such matters as minimising insurance claims against the States, and who has had papers from the police which seek the extradition of suspects sat on his desk for nearly four months.
There is a fundamental foundation stone of the good administration of justice – which is that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. No respectable or credible judicial processes can admit even the merest suspicion of bias or of a conflict of interest.
The test that all respectable judicial proceedings must pass is ‘the appearance of objectivity test’. For the reasons described above, neither our judiciary nor our prosecution service, under the leadership of these two individuals, can remotely hope to meet that test.
That is certainly how things appear to those survivors who have discussed the matter with me. So, sadly, when faced with an inflexible determination on the part of our authorities to fly in the face of all established jurisprudence, I am forced to seek objective justice on behalf of my constituents via London.
Some people also, perhaps, need to be reminded that our Law Officers are Crown appointees – and that the administration of justice in Jersey is carried out under the good name of the Crown. For as long as our judicial apparatus wears that cloak, it must meet the requisite standards.
Mrs Nelson objects to the ‘legal costs’ involved in the legal action. So do I, as it happens; I would far prefer that the survivors had access to the objective administration of justice, rather than having to battle for it. But the point is irrelevant so far as I am concerned. When I hear people complaining about the financial cost of achieving the catharsis this community so desperately needs, I see yet further evidence of how Jersey was able to incubate these atrocities for so long.
Moans about the cost of achieving justice are every bit as revealing and damning as those attacks on Esther Rantzen that the JEP has seen fit to print.
Esther Rantzen has done more for the safety and welfare of children than every politician in Britain combined. Her achievements are recognised and honoured nationally and internationally. She is a great human being – with more compassion and wisdom in her little finger than six decades worth of States Members could muster between them.
Mrs Nelson and others who share her views really need to begin reflecting upon how their attitude makes Jersey appear to the civilised world.
6 Raleigh Court, Raleigh Avenue,
St Helier.
Article posted on 23rd August, 2008 - 9.59am
12 Article Comments
Once again the Senator, who purports to act in the best interests of the electorate, sets himself as the sole arbiter of law and democracy wishing to be judge and jury in all matters particularly those which pander to his narcissistic persona.
Whilst the matter of abuse, in whatever form it exists, is reprehensible it should be dealt with in the manners proscribed both by the law of the land and the current social environment. It is wholly unacceptable that an ‘elected’ representative should use such dreadful circumstances as a vehicle for his own promotion, as Senator Syvret continues to do. Perhaps the Senator might achieve more if he acted like the statesman he professes to be on behalf of the injured parties rather than the present self serving manner he so often does which reminds one so much of US Senator Joe McCarthy, an elected politician who also accused everyone who did not subscribe to his particular policies as either having something to hide or of being in collusion with other bodies.
We must not allow unbridled accusations such as those continually being made by Senator Syvret to poison our society as Senator McCarthy’s did in the 1950’s
Here Here
congratulations Stuart Syvret on your wonderful letter!!
It is obvious from the two previous opinions that many people in jersey are led by judgment rather than observation.
Senetor Syvret should spend some time on his grammar. as he doens’t understand the diiference bewteen the subject and object ii sentences
“The action is, in fact, being taken by the Liberal-Democrat MP, John Hemming, and I.”
The end of this should be he and me i.e. us.
It woul;d nonsensical if it ended with “we” which is effectively what he has done here.
Exactly what self interest is Senator Syvret indulging in? Does Alan actually think it is just the Senator who believes that these atrocities have been committed and that the victims will not receive justice and the perpetrators punished. Did he not read the statement from the Detective who just retired and in particular his comments on the old boys network, documents/evidence still with the AG office for months, or does Alan feel that the Detective also has a personal agenda. What has happened to these poor people is appalling, shocking, perhaps Alan should speak to the victims as the Senator and Detective have and experience what it has been like for them to try and do something about it before condemning people who have. Not everyone is driven by with self interest.
Adrian, I think you are missing the point. Sen Syvret is not trying to give an english grammar lesson but rather explain about the injustice surrounding the child abuse enquiry
Congratulations to Adrian on his spectacular incompetence in both language and basic humanity, and many congratulations to Senator Syvret for his courage and persistence in the face of truly shocking pressure from those who should be helping him, not hindering him. May he have the strength to see this battle through. I for one can’t wait to see not only the abusers brought to justice but all those who have actively and passively colluded with them, though that last trial might see half of Jersey in the dock. Shame on you all for choosing to be so blind.
Perhaps adrian should check his emails
Adrian, for someone who can’t spell, or can’t be bothered to reread and correct what you’ve written, it’s hypocritical of you to criticise anyone else for their grammar, given that that particular ‘rule’ is dubious anyway.
Grammar is not a Platonic ideal - it is extrapolated from common usage, hence anything ungrammatical now my be grammatical later.
If you had asked a grammarian 50 years ago whether they approved of ‘they’ in this sentence, he or she would have surely disapproved.
See GB Shaw, Lynne Truss, A Pedant, et al, etc, ad infinitum. Snooze…
Senator Syvret seems to be the only Jersey politician who has taken up the cause of Jersey’s institutionally abused. Why do his critics accuse him of self-promotion when if he wasn’t vocal about his cause he would be, er, silent, like all the rest.
I suppose Martin Luther King was being narcissistic when he promoted civil rights, Gandhi when he sought independence, Emmeline Pankhurst when she fought for women’s rights?
How else can you make yourself heard unless you speak up? In the modern world that means using the media in all its forms.
I don’t see anything ’self-serving’ in Senator Syvret’s behaviour. On the contrary, it has alienated him from the political establishment, caused him an enormous amount of stress, to go with the endless work he puts in, and for good measure it has probably impacted him financially.
His behaviour could only be construed as self-serving if he had personally benefited from pursuing this cause, which he obviously hasn’t. In fact, it would have benefited him a lot more to have have kept silent and been a ‘team player’, like some of his critics.
Thank goodness there are still a few people who say it as it is ! Good for you Sen. Syvret.
Oops ! hope the grammar was o.k
maxine.