Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Go down

Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by GD on Thu 22 Oct 2009, 1:52 pm

A Jersey politician could be arrested if he does not attend the Magistrates' Court for a second time this week.
Senator Stuart Syvret has had his bail conditions changed after he failed to turn up for court on Wednesday to hear arguments in his abuse of process case.
He is charged with data protection offences and two motoring offences but has called for an abuse of process hearing over the way he was arrested.
The court said after not appearing he must now show up on Friday.
On Wednesday the prosecution read out an email it said Mr Syvret sent to the court at about the time he was due to appear.
'Explain his actions'
It apologised for his absence and said he was in London getting legal advice, the assistant magistrate heard.
Prosecution Advocate Stephen Baker said Mr Syvret should be ordered to appear on Friday to explain his actions.
Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw said he was originally bailed to appear on 9 November but that would be changed to 23 October.
If he again fails to show without a reasonable excuse he will be arrested, the court heard.
The senator is representing himself in the abuse of process proceedings. (from BBC)


Last edited by GD on Sat 24 Oct 2009, 12:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


......THE BOSS......

"Always be yourself because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind"

avatar
GD

Male
Number of posts : 10122
Location : Channel Islands
Job/hobbies : Website Forums...lol
Humor : Anything that makes me laugh
Registration date : 2008-03-06

http://www.vuedesisles.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by bug1 on Thu 22 Oct 2009, 4:53 pm

Was he or was he not required to appear?there seem to be conflicting views on this.
avatar
bug1

Male
Number of posts : 4062
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2008-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by GD on Sat 24 Oct 2009, 12:51 pm

A Jersey senator's arrest has been ordered after he failed to appear in court for a second time this week.
Senator Stuart Syvret was due in the Magistrates' Court earlier as part of his abuse of justice process hearing.
He is charged with data protection and motoring offences but has since called for an abuse of process hearing over the way his arrest was handled.
He did not turn up for court on Wednesday and was told he would be arrested if he did not show on Friday.
Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw has made an order for Mr Syvret's arrest with a £100 bail option.
'Reasonable excuse'
His previous bail conditions were changed earlier in the week when he missed a directions hearing in his abuse of process case.
On Wednesday the prosecution said Mr Syvret had emailed the court saying he was in London getting legal advice when he should have been in court.
The assistant magistrate then asked him to attend on Friday, saying he could face arrest if he did not appear without a reasonable excuse.
The court heard on Friday afternoon that Mr Syvret had acknowledged receipt of the bail changes and the requirement for him to appear today.
Mr Syvret is representing himself in the proceedings.
The case has been adjourned until 9 November. (from BBC)


......THE BOSS......

"Always be yourself because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind"

avatar
GD

Male
Number of posts : 10122
Location : Channel Islands
Job/hobbies : Website Forums...lol
Humor : Anything that makes me laugh
Registration date : 2008-03-06

http://www.vuedesisles.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by bug1 on Sat 24 Oct 2009, 5:37 pm

Keep winding them Stu!
avatar
bug1

Male
Number of posts : 4062
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2008-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by Dell on Sun 25 Oct 2009, 2:53 pm

Check this story out in the Mail on Sunday...

Senator from Jersey accused of leaking police report wants asylum after fleeing trial


Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1222802/Senator-Jersey-accused-leaking-police-report-wants-asylum-fleeing-trial.html#ixzz0UxYNRe9u




.


"Lovely Jubbly - Cushty - Rodney, you plonker - This time next year we'll be millionaires!" Dell Trotter
avatar
Dell

Male
Number of posts : 4468
Location : Guernsey
Humor : Yes please!
Registration date : 2008-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by bug1 on Sun 25 Oct 2009, 4:27 pm

I know the clocks just went back but is it April the 1st.?
avatar
bug1

Male
Number of posts : 4062
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2008-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by boatyboy on Sun 25 Oct 2009, 5:05 pm

Senator Stuart Syvret seeks asylum in the UK as he claims he would not get a fair trial in Jersey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222802/Senator-Jersey-accused-leaking-police-report-wants-asylum-fleeing-trial.html

BB.

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by boatyboy on Sun 25 Oct 2009, 6:07 pm

What all the fuss is about............... fact or fiction you decide.

Quote.

The document I publish is a secret Police report from 1999.

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2009/03/mass-murderer.html

BB

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by bug1 on Mon 26 Oct 2009, 4:39 pm

That is just too frightening but how do you stop these"elected representatives"?
avatar
bug1

Male
Number of posts : 4062
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2008-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by technophobe on Mon 26 Oct 2009, 5:26 pm

The "system" in Jersey appears to be thoroughly and disgustingly corrupt. The Bailiff, Attorney General, former Chief Minister, senior civil servants, they all appear to be in it up to their necks.

If these documents that Stuart Syvret has published are false, why has nothing been done about it? And if they're genuine then quite frankly an independent inquiry ought to be held into the whole affair.

How would you feel if one of your relatives had died whilst this nurse was on duty?

technophobe

Male
Number of posts : 421
Location : st peter port
Registration date : 2008-10-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by boatyboy on Tue 27 Oct 2009, 9:25 am

Senator Syvret feels that releasing the police report that the AG studied but then put on ice, was in the public interest. It is the reason that Stuart Syvret is in London because as far as I can make out (and I may be wrong), by publishing the police report he broke data protection rules. To be fair to the accused nurse, I feel no names should have been mentioned, innocent until proved guilty as the law states.

He apparently is arguing that as an elected member of Government, he wants to use some of this evidence and data to prove that it is in the public interest and call to court the AG and others.

The Magistrate says it is not in the public interest ( hence the clash )he feels he cannot defend himself therefore on this basis and not get a fair trial. I am not legally qualified, so any further input would be welcome.

BB

boatyboy

Male
Number of posts : 176
Location : jersey
Registration date : 2009-05-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by shafted on Fri 30 Oct 2009, 10:37 pm

Boatyboy

I've taken the liberty of copying an analysis of the case from comments
on Stuarts blogsite which I think clarifies in essence the huge
problems he faces in gaining a fair trial.

"An Idiots Guide to the Senator Syvret Data Protection Case Part 1

Iím
producing this from some transcripts of the trial I have been given.
The local press and TV reporting on this trial has been superficial and
misleading. Iím not a lawyer, just a lay person who finds this trial
interesting.

The Magistrate stated at one of the early hearings
ďIf anyone does want a full record of the court proceedings then they
should apply to the Greffier for a transcript, thatís open for anyone
to do soĒ The transcripts are public documents.

So what are the
cases? Senator Stuart Syvret is accused of driving without a licence
and failing to register a change of address of his motor vehicle. In
addition he is charged with breaching the Data Protection Law by
publishing a document about a 1999 police investigation into a
suspected Healthcare serial killer.

So what is the Senatorís
Defence? The Senator is initially making an abuse of process argument
about jointly the data protection and driving licence cases. If he is
successful both charges will be quashed, if unsuccessful he will plead
not guilty about the data protection offences on the grounds that
disclosure was in the public interest, but the Senator has not made
clear how he intends to plead on the driving licence case.

How
important in the driving licence case? The driving licence was
allegedly found to be out of date from events connected with a police
raid on the Senatorís home. The Senator is contesting the driving
licence case as part of his abuse of process argument as he considers
the police raid was illegal. If the abuse of process argument fails he
has said he is not calling any witnesses about the driving licence and
will accept the police statements without cross examination.

What
is the abuse of process argument? The Senator is making an abuse of
process argument jointly about the data protection and driving licence
cases. His argument is that he cannot get a fair trial as the courtís
processes are being manipulated against him. In effect the Prosecution
is being brought in bad faith. There are several strands to his
argument, not least that the Prosecution is withholding evidence that
the Senator considers central to his Defence. If the Senator wins his
argument both charges against him will be dropped.

Who decides
the relevance of the evidence? The Prosecution (a.k.a. Crown, Crown
Advocate, Prosecution Advocate, Prosecutor) decides.

Is it
fair that the Prosecution Advocate makes the decision? This has been a
central issue in hearings that have taken place. The Prosecution
Advocate selects and reads any documents and alone decides on whether
they are relevant to the Defence case. If he decides they are
irrelevant the Defence does not get to see them or even get told about
them.

Is there no way round this? Apart from fleeing the
country Ė no. Well, thatís not strictly true. The Senator can argue
that a particular document is relevant to his case to the Magistrate
who can order its disclosure.

Does the Prosecution then have
to disclose it? No, but that then could be seen as an abuse of process.
But the Senator can only argue to the Magistrate about a specific
document that he wants. He has to know that specific document exists.

Has there been an incident where the Senator has argued for disclosure
of a specific document and it has been refused? Yes, nearly. The
Senator has asked for any communications that took place between the
Attorney General and the Parish Constable in connection with the raid
on his home. The Magistrate responded by asking whether he could point
to any piece of correspondence. The Senator said that he had asked for
any such correspondence. The Magistrate pointed out that the
Prosecution had said there was no relevant correspondence, and the
Prosecution Advocate confirmed his position was that there was no
information that he considered relevant to disclose. The Senator argued
that the information was most likely relevant to his case. The heated
argument ended with the Magistrate asking the Prosecutor whether he
wanted her to review the documents related to the raid. The Prosecutor
said no, and the Magistrate accepted that.

Are there any other
areas of contention about documents? There have been too many to list
without this ceasing to be a brief commentary on the case. Most of the
hearings have been taken up with wrangles over the release or
non-release of documents. But several of the hearings have been
directed towards deciding which witnesses will be called. The Senator
has repeatedly stated that without seeing all the relevant documents he
does not know which witnesses to call. This circular argument became
more and more heated with further hearings.

What are the
relevant points in the data protection case? The Senatorís defence is
that he published the police report in the public interest and to
prevent crime. He believes the nurse in question is dangerous and that
the case against the nurse that he is a mass murderer had not been
properly investigated in 1999. He also feels that the rights of the
families of the victims of the nurseís terrible crimes have never been
addressed. He believes that even at this stage the family should be
privately alerted to the fact that their relative may have been
murdered. He wishes to cross examine one of the Prosecution witnesses
from the Health Service as there is evidence that this senior employee
downplayed and concealed the murders. The Prosecution argued initially
that there was an intensive well conducted police investigation which
found insufficient evidence to charge the nurse. However the
Prosecution dramatically changed tack in October and now argues that it
believes that the Crown case has never been about the nurse, nor about
the police investigation, but partly about the fact that the Defendant
had claimed that the Attorney General had covered up a criminal offence.

Why
the change in tack? Itís not completely clear. Indeed itís not clear
what the Prosecution case now is. There is a skeleton argument but it
is not in the transcripts. But the transcripts show that right from the
beginning of the hearings in June the Prosecution had been arguing that
there was a well conducted police investigation. That seemed central to
its case. In October the Senator claimed, at the last hearing he
attended, that he had examined some of the evidence he had been given
and had expert opinions on it. The Senator considered the evidence was
abundantly clear the 1999 investigation had been catastrophically
defective. He believed the Crown had recognised this, and were at the
last minute trying to rule this whole Defence argument inadmissible. He
stated there is clearly an overwhelming public interest disclosure
defence available in exposing a bungled and failed investigation into a
potential mass murderer.

What is the Public interest defence? It
is built into the Data Protection Law that the law is not broken if the
release of data was in the public interest or to prevent and detect
crimes. The Senator claims that he had tried to publicise this matter
in Why the change in tack? Itís not completely clear. Indeed itís not
clear what the Prosecution case now is. There is a skeleton argument
but it is not in the transcripts. But the transcripts show that right
from the beginning of the hearings in June the Prosecution had been
arguing that there was a well conducted police investigation. That
seemed central to its case. In October the Senator claimed, at the last
hearing he attended, that he had examined some of the evidence he had
been given and had expert opinions on it. The Senator considered the
evidence was abundantly clear the 1999 investigation had been
catastrophically defective. He believed the Crown had recognised this,
and were at the last minute trying to rule this whole Defence argument
inadmissible. He stated there is clearly an overwhelming public
interest disclosure defence available in exposing a bungled and failed
investigation into a potential mass murderer.

What is the Public
interest defence? It is built into the Data Protection Law that the law
is not broken if the release of data was in the public interest or to
prevent and detect crimes. The Senator claims that he had tried to
publicise this matter in other ways and has presented evidence to
support these claims.

Why did the Senator stop attending the
hearings? He had complained previously about the large number of
hearings, and that the main issue of him getting the relevant documents
to mount his defence was being ignored. The Magistrate called the
discussion to a halt in October over whether he could mount a defence
based on the fact that the police investigation was bungled. She wished
to put the matter off and arrange yet another hearing at which the
Prosecution could argue why the investigation was of limited or no
relevance to the Senatorís case. The Senator had made it clear that he
considered this was outrageous. They had been having hearings over 4
months and at the last minute the Prosecution was totally changing its
case and rejecting a line of Defence which it had previously accepted.
In response to the decision to have a further hearing the next week,
the Senator stated ďWell I have to make it plain now, you will have to
instruct the police to arrest me because Iím not turning up before this
court any further.Ē As the Magistrate discussed the date of the next
hearing the Senator said he was going home. It is not clear whether he
was in the court when the trial was listed for 9th and 10th November,
and that he was bailed to that time, with no conditions attached.
30/10/09other ways and has presented evidence to support these claims."

You need to live here and experience the total corrupt and oppressive way of life to believe it. I spent the first ten years of my working life in Jersey becoming more and more paranoid, until I realised that it wasn't me, they really are out to get you!

Evidence?

Lynne Swiatczak
Simon Bellwood
Lenny Harper
Graham Power
John Day
Stuart Syvret
Chris Newton

And they are only the names in the public domain - I know of many, many more in the same or similar position who are still trying to survive in an impossible situation

shafted

Male
Number of posts : 37
Location : Great Britain
Registration date : 2009-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Senator fails to turn up to court arrest order made

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum