Syvret arrest: States back police
Friday 1st May 2009, 3:00PM BST.
Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand
THE States backed the police yesterday in the row over the controversial arrest of Senator Stuart Syvret and the search of his home.
Members voted two-to-one against a proposition brought by Deputy Geoff Southern calling on the House to voice its serious concerns about the matter.
Those who did vote for the motion argued that the police tactics threatened one of the keystones of parliamentary democracy – that electors and Members should not fear States interference in their private communications with elected representative.
During four hours of debate, which several times descended into bitter acrimony and name-calling, more details about the arrest on 6 April were revealed. The Home Affairs Minister made a statement explaining why ten officers had been sent to the house which the Senator shares with his partner, Deputy Carolyn Labey, that morning
• Full report in today’s Jersey Evening Post
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
At least the members of the States (well some of them) saw that what most people have said all along, the States of Jersey Police acted correctly. I am sure given Mr Syvret’s need to use his blog, that it wont be the end of the matter. Would be nice to think that it was though!!!
Report abuse
I have every confidence that, as a former Magistrate, the Home Affairs Minister had good reason for what he did and having seen Senator Syvret’s BLOG, I was less than impressed. However, the last missing piece to the equation is; why no search warrant?
Can anybody explain?
Report abuse
4 HOURS of debate? Surely they could have done something much better with this time? Why would policitians expect to be treated differently in the eyes of the law? It just gets worse every week.I just keep hoping for the day when they remember who they are working for and start looking after the Islands of Jersey and not themselves.
Report abuse
What a surprise!!!
Report abuse
don’t we all think its about time that our politicians focus on more important matters than handbags at 10 paces and the continual he said she said. pathetic
grow up and get on with it!
Report abuse
I must be missing something here – how can the police search your home without your permission or a warrant?
Or can they do what they like if backed by the majority of the government who hate Svyret?
Can they barge into anyone’s house if they express views questioning the integrity of an elected official.
Orwell was right, just 25 years later.
Report abuse
Keith, in answer to your question.
Hypothetically, of course… I could ring crimestoppers anonymously and tell the police (quite falsly, because I don’t like people called Keith) that I saw you smoking a cannabis joint in your garden.
The police would be very unlikely to convince the Bailiff that there are sufficient grounds to obtain a warrant on that informaton so what can they do? Simple – if for some reason they felt compelled to make your life a misery.
They wait for you to leave for work in the morning and they arrest you on your doorstep on suspicion of a drugs offence. Their suspicion is based on ‘information received’. They do not have to disclose what that information is and cannot reveal the source because I did not leave my name.
Now that they have arrested you they can enter your house under Art 29 of PPCE. They can go through you private correspondence, your wife’s underwear draw and look at all your holiday snaps. They will (hopefully) find nothing incriminating and will leave you alone.
Would they actually do this to an ordinary member of the public? Who knows – but they could, and it is wide open to that kind of abuse.
Is it conceivable that they would do this in order to intimdate or shut up a political loose canon?
Is this not why it is imperative that some safeguards are in place (warrants!) to prevent the potential for abuse?
PS the bit about not liking people called Keith was also hypothetical. Some of my best friends know people called Keith…
Report abuse
Well, this confirms it. If we are not a police state, we are as damned near to one as we will ever be.
Report abuse
Whatever ridiculous or offensive stupidity Mr Syvret publishes, there remains the crucial issue of the Jersey police not requiring a warrant to search your home.
Democratic countries use the warrant system to assure that no abuse is possible. Totalitarian countries can and do search without a warrant. Never mind whether this is “legal” or not. Most totalitarian regimes have written this into their own law and act perfectly legal when searching without a warrant and using the excuse of “probable cause” (e.g. former East Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, Iran, and so forth). We celebrate “liberation day” next week, but certain methods loved by police states seem to have prevailed!
So why is this highly important issue not discussed with urgency rather than this smokescreen about Mr Syveret’s stupidities?
Report abuse
What a surprise, though very sad that those States members who voted against the proposition were almost certainly doing so as a vote against Senator Syvret, and not after a deliberation of what took place and the implications of this Police raid, that took place without a search warrant. I expect that in the event of this ever being deliberated in a Court of Law, that the Jersey judicial system will of course deliver a similar “verdict”.
The failure within Jersey to separate the political from the judicial is a major and scandalous failing. It appears that there are few who understand the full seriousness of what has taken place, though as #6 wrote, Orwell was right.
Report abuse
Keith there’s another post that goes well into the legal side of the issue. I’ll admit that (with my limited understanding) none of it has answered who exactly could find themselves facing that same situation, me? you? Le Sueur? or just people like Syvret? I’d love to know.
All that aside… can we stop the name-calling? Please? Is this really what people pay their salaries for, to have them name-calling?
Report abuse
A sad and black day for justice,no one has properly answered why the data protection law was not used,and the confusion of the police having asked for and being granted a warrant by a jurat then being told by the lawyers that the warrant was not valid and that they didn’t need one anyway..you mean they don’t know..? aren’t they supposed to..? if the said crime was so serious that a Sweeney type attack was warranted,why has he not been charged with anything…? it seems that what we have here is a situation where the establishment make or manipulate laws…when they want to get at someone,and let’s face it the rift between them and us in the States is widening by the minute. The criteria by which this dangerous law is invoked are flimsy at best, it appears someone with an axe to grind can make your life hell for any reason real or imagined, as for Ian Le Marquand saying the states should not interfere in the operational independence of police and prosecutors, on what is that based..? what are we to do then when they themselves need policing..? given the lack of integrity and corruption of late, does he seriously expect the public to buy a naive assumption that the police are flawless ,perfect,utterly impartial,disciplined and exempt from the foibles of humanity. We pay for and employ them. Many people voted for Ian in the belief that he would rein them in as they had gotten very chaotic and out of control,hence the Kinard,Power,Lenny Harper saga to mention just a few situations that manifestly displayed a lack of ethics, checks and balances…this looks scary, will people be able to approach their elected representative for help and entrust any relevant documents needed into their “Safe”keeping…I think not …This law is a confused law should be rescinded and replaced by a tested and reliable one like the “Fourth amendment which clearly and simply states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers and effects,against unreasonable search and seizures shall Not be violated,and No warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be seized”..I feel a lot more comfortable with that and will be asking my Deputies and Senators to bring it forward..you can too..
Report abuse
it is a matter of very serious concern to me that there are unaccountable people in the states. many of us are to busy and to disinterested to understand the gravity of what what is going on here in jersey. stewart is doing his best to bring these matters to the fore with very little sucess and support.
Report abuse
Just typical form Jersey and exactly what everyone expected.
Also My faminly have just cancelled out trip to Jersey and will advice our friends to do the same.
This is shameful and the States of Jersey are now a pariah state with no hope of redemtion in our book…
Report abuse
Stomache Ache
The separation of political and judicial is obvious however, in Jersey…
The Bailiff wears a political and judicial hat.
We have 12 constables in the States – Constables who are also the heads of the Honarary Police.
I am sure there are other anomolies
Report abuse
Well i suppose the last time this was done was during the occupation, and probably for the same reason, political dissent.
Report abuse
As I have always said the truth will provale with Syvret. Now the facts are really coming out regarding the arrest there seems to be quite a bit of disparity between Syvrets version and the correct one eh’
Report abuse
Okay, the States and the A.G. have stated there was no problem with the search under the P.P.C.E Law, but was this action proportionate?
I have been away from the Island for a number of years and can’t recall whether Jersey has a Human Rights Law, based on the European Convention of Human Rights. This protects the right to privacy and security. It also mentions proportionality – given the alleged offence involved, was it really proportionate to raid Stuart Syvret’s home? The term ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’ springs to mind.
Report abuse
interesting to note that PPCE 2003 which gives the police a power of search without warrant for arrested persons was passed by the States Assembly with SYVRET voting POUR (for) the statute…..! The statute replicates the UK PACE.
Report abuse
I read this as no warrent is required to search anyone’s house as it is down to interpretation by the police of the law. If they interpret the law as a “search you house law” that is what it will be. Therefore anyone, in I my opinion, can have their house searched without a warrent. Is everyone happy with this? If they are no problem then.
I myself see this as another step towards 1984 it is just that the majority are unable to see their liberties being erroded one by one. The authorities have done a good job at convincing the public that due to the threat of terrorism draconain laws must be put in place to protect them. The classic scare-reaction-solution process of getting laws through that never would have stood a chance pre-2001.
I wonder what people will say if/when the state suggests the need for people to be micro-chipped in the battle against terrorism?
Report abuse
So 2 out of 3 States members find it perfectly acceptable and reasonable for the Police to be able to raid any premises they choose, and confiscate any items they choose, without using a warrant or leaving an intinary of the confiscated goods – goods which in the case of a Politician could contain private correspondance with constituents.
Aside from the obvious civil rights questions this raises, one has to wonder what it says about the value those who voted against the proposition place upon the privacy of their own constituents.
I would now advise anyone who in future intends to write or email a States member about a private or sensitive issue, to check which members voted against the proposition before doing so. If one of those is your member you may want to be very careful about the private information you hand them.
The biggest result of this vote was to prove just how wide the gap is between democracy in Jersey and democracy in the real world. Once again our politicians have made our political system look like a glorified toytown council.
With increasing regularity I am noticing comments on this site and others comparing Jersey to Zimbabwe. Such a comparison may at first seem incredibly far fetched, but with a majority of the States supporting “free reign” policing methods such as that used against Syvret, democracy and civil liberty in Jersey is certainly not moving closer to the democracy of the free world.
Report abuse
I’ve never seen so many barrack room lawyers as on this forum. Why jump to hysterical conclusions from a position of pure ignorance? The police were perfectly correct. Their procedures are the same as the UK use, and procedures are regularly checked by HM Inspectorate of Constabularies. There are circumstances when a warrant is neither needed or appropriate, particularly when there is enough evidence to arrest. Here, there was; it’s called his blog. The officers may then search for evidence connected with the offence for which that person was arrested. Just the same as in the UK. Sorry, no conspiracy, no police state, just the police doing their job. Sorry to disappoint the hysteria brigade…
Report abuse
The result from the states is entirely predictable and comes about from what has become personality politics.
The opportunity for an examination of these police powers was missed. Senator Le Marquand has now shown where he stands on the matter of civil liberties. Strange really, because he would not comment when the incident occurred but is now vocal in his defence of the actio taken.
Report abuse
This is Jersey, well done for publishing these posts,not all easy and comfortable,thus allowing People Media to flourish, also showing that a chance for folk to speak is invaluable to the community in these troubled times..Thank you.
Report abuse
Euan Me You have just said the evidence was on his blog why therefore, in my opinion, the heavy handed approach to waiting, luckily till everyone was away. We all know the police don’t eves drop don’t we?
Why then wait till the person came out of the house before entering? Why not break down the door because he could have destroyed all evidence before going out couldn’t he? This therefore in my opinion makes a mockery of the theory that he might be hiding evidence doesn’t it? He may have seen them outside before he went out what then? He could easily have destroyed the evidence before going out!!!
Also I thought these powers were allegedly for life and death situations, like terrorism, maybe data protection now falls under the terrorsim laws? Also we have been informed that others have broken the data protection laws, so I am expecting them to be arrested and interrogated for up to seven hours and to have their house searched as well.
Will this happen? I don’t think so as one is an establishment person. Therefore, in my opinion, this is selectively chosing whom to apply this procedure to, and allegedly everyone is meant to be treated the same.
I will be most interested to hear the new Head Chief Officer explain the difference between Senator Syvret’s case and another person’s case when both have been accused of breaking tha same data protection law.
If Senator Syvret isn’t charged then this is beyond the pale as far as I am concerned.
What about personal paperwork that Senator Syvret was given in confidence? How will these people feel now that the authorities are aware of what they have been doing? Will they be resting easy in their beds at night do you think? You might be happy for the police to look at private information on yourselves I am not.
Indeed have the police broken the data protection law themselves or are they immune from it? I would like a legal eagle to answer these very important points if they are able. Maybe the Attorney General, or someone else in charge might want to make a comment on all this? I eagerly await their explanations.
Sigend a very concerned islander.
Report abuse
21.Charles Kendrick as per your comments in my opinion the difference between the two is that one is covert and one is overt. However the end result is the same.
Report abuse
Kate, #17
This is not really about whether, in a particular case, the police acted appropriately and properly or indeed within the law.
This is about whether these powers are open to abuse by the police or whether sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent it; after all, that is precisely why search warrants were introduced into law in the first place many years ago – to provide safeguards from abuse of the state.
If (and I say that deliberately because it has not been ruled upon in a court) these searches are lawful, there is a far wider implication to be considered if the checks and balances in place vis a vis warants can be completely removed.
Just because the UK has similar powers does not make it right. There are many in the UK also screaming about civil liberties being trashed and it being a police state etc. More CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, powers to monitor your emails etc etc.
Report abuse
The police would treat any member of the public in the same way, so why does Syvret think he should have been treated better…
Anyone else getting bored of his personal crusade to be in the spotlight?
Report abuse
I think we are all getting bored of Stuart Syvret and his rantings. I am pleased I voted for Ian Le Marquand now, at least he is working for the people.
Report abuse
Euan Mee 22
Your post is a glimmer of light in the darkness of the overwhelming misguided.
Our police need to be able to protect our population PP&CE is a tool for them to do just that, It is not a charter for them to assault our human rights its so they can uphold them.
SS had been arrested, the police had enough evidence for that, they did not wake up one morning and say “lets raid a politician today to see what we can turn up.
Police Procedure and Criminal Evidence is exactly what it says on the box. It was enacted 6 years ago democratically by our States (SS being one of them)
Report abuse
It emerged in the States debate last week that a warrant had been issued, signed by a Jurat, for a search of Senator Syvret’s property under the data protection law, but that warrant was disregarded. Following legal advice the police had opted to pass over that warrant and search under Article 29 of PPCE as it apparently allowed for a much more extensive search.
Apart from this being a questionable subverting of the data protection law by the police/law officer, it also raises the serious question as to whether, as both an arrest of Senator Syvret and the place of his arrest being at his residence were essential for the search of his property under Article 29, Senator Syvret’s arrest was perversely staged to sanction the search that followed.
Report abuse
Don’t get all worked up, you Syvret worshippers! As your Messiah keeps saying to those he slanders in his website, “If you don’t like it, sue!”
But of course it’s one rule for you lot and your Blessed Leader, and quite another for the victims of his vicious campaigns… And please don’t say what about the other victims, they have not been helped in the slightest by your Chosen One, he has made any prosecution almost impossible.
Report abuse
The UK has this law but it also has many others.
Freedom of information for instance.
Jersey needs a freedom of information act and soon.
Our politicians are able to hide behind a fog of bad and misleading information.
Real democracy is only possible with freedom of information.
Report abuse