UDGE SHAW: I don’t think Mr. Morris is asking for an adjournment to follow these points up.
LEGAL ADVISER: I am not Madam, no.
JUDGE SHAW: Thank you very much. Mr. Syvret I don’t have a copy of Sweet and Maxwell may I borrow your copy. I am going to retire and consider the points you have made.
DEFENDANT: I would also say that recusal, my recusal application is also based, excuse me I forgot to mention this.
JUDGE SHAW: Yes.
DEFENDANT: On the fact that I strongly believe that there are other factors that would evidence my recusal application, which is why I made the disclosure requests I did to the States of Jersey Police Force, and they have refused to comply with those disclosures. So I am now here before the Court unable to make a properly informed and evidenced fully fleshed out recusal application, because the Police and the Prosecution have denied me substantial tranches of the evidence which may be important to me in making those pleas.
LEGAL ADVISER: Madam, I just want to reply to that if I may.
JUDGE SHAW: Well sit down please Mr. Syvret.
LEGAL ADVISER: The C.J.U. the police, the Prosecution have complied with the Attorney General’s guidelines on case management and disclosure. Yesterday afternoon Mr. Syvret attended at the Police Station was offered a bundle of disclosure, what we would call Part A, together with a transcript of the interview, he refused to accept it. However this morning I offered it to him before court and he accepted it.
DEFENDANT: The material disclosed is inadequate, it is partial, it is not the information I have sought for disclosure, and it’s interesting that the learned Advocate referred to the Attorney General, I could also quote from a speech given by the Attorney General as at D’Heritage 2008, in which he made various references to me and the legal (inter)
JUDGE SHAW: Well I think Mr. Morris is talking about the guidelines that the Attorney General issued some years ago which govern disclosure in the criminal process and have been abided by for a number of years now, and these were based on the English Case Law, which was decided before there was further legislation in the United Kingdom. Be that as it may Mr. Syvret what I want to know is you’re saying that there are other pieces of information (inter)
DEFENDANT: Indeed.
JUDGE SHAW: You would like, which would be evidence of… which would support your application, is that what you’re saying?
DEFENDANT: Indeed yes.
JUDGE SHAW: In general terms would they alter the grounds of your application or are they designed to amplify and give further details.
DEFENDANT: They would quite possibly alter the terms of my application.
JUDGE SHAW: How do you know that?
DEFENDANT: Well I’m not in a position to gauge that and to make that assessment until the evidence is disclosed to me. The fact is there is this material I have referred to, it exists, for example yesterday I e-mailed expressly the Chief Officer, the acting Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, and stated to him quite plainly that I required full disclosure of my Operation Blast File. The reason for that is that there may be material in that that is relevant, structurally relevant to a recusal argument and also evidence in that kind of material which is relevant to further pleas I would make. To the effect that evidence discovered and used and cited against me has been obtained unlawfully.
JUDGE SHAW: But then you are getting into the realms of trying the actual case, rather than the recusal. We need to deal with one thing at a time.
DEFENDANT: The Operation Blast material could well have material substantially important material then that is relevant, structurally relevant to the recusal application.
JUDGE SHAW: But this is all on the same grounds that because of the (inter)
DEFENDANT: Not necessarily (inter)
JUDGE SHAW: No hear me out, the, what your argument is, is that you cannot be fairly tried in Jersey because of your position as a Senator and because of the criticisms that you have made of the Jersey system generally.
DEFENDANT: Yes.
JUDGE SHAW: So that is the thrust of your argument?
DEFENDANT: That is the thrust of the argument, it is also entirely feasible that there may in fact have been unlawful acts by the police, by the Prosecution Service and possibly even senior members of the Judiciary.
JUDGE SHAW: But that’s not something that you actually know about.
DEFENDANT: It’s not something I’m in a position to know about because the relevant information data has not been disclosed to me, and it’s been expressly refused.
JUDGE SHAW: I understand the grounds of your application. Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT: I am unable to make the application to the extent and effectiveness that I would wish without the information.
JUDGE SHAW: I understand what you are saying. Anything else Mr. Morris?
LEGAL ADVISER: No Madam.
Court adjourned then briget shaw summed up you can find further back in the thread
DEFENDANT: I certainly wish to appeal the matter to the Royal Court and why should seeking to use the court’s in this matter risk an abuse of process prosecution (inter)
JUDGE SHAW: No, it’s against you, what I’m saying is that the Court has power to stop a prosecution if the Court feels the Prosecution have acted wrongly. That is a safeguard for you, it’s not something that would be held against you, it’s something that would be exercised in your favour.
DEFENDANT: Okay.
JUDGE SHAW: Do you understand?
DEFENDANT: Well yes, yes and I wish to appeal.
JUDGE SHAW: Very well, did you wish an adjournment of this case in order to take the case… my decision for judicial review?
DEFENDANT: Yes I do, yes.
JUDGE SHAW: Very good, Greffier. … … The listing of that matter Mr. Syvret would be in the hands of the Royal Court and therefore without knowledge of when the Royal Court could deal with this matter, I propose to adjourn the case for a period of four weeks.
LEGAL ADVISER: The 16th of July Madam.
JUDGE SHAW: That’s the 16th of July. That would be a hearing here at ten o’clock, there are no conditions relevant are there Centenier?
CENTENIER ANDREWS: No Madam.
LEGAL ADVISER: No.
JUDGE SHAW: There are no conditions attached to your bail, simply that you are released from this court with a duty to attend on the 16th of July at nine thirty for a ten o’clock hearing.
DEFENDANT: And that will be again in this court room?
JUDGE SHAW: Yes. We normally sit in Court 2. Mr. Syvret but the Royal Court I believe will still be using Court 2. so this would be…
DEFENDANT: And that appeal will be heard by which arrangement of judges?
JUDGE SHAW: I don’t know, you must make your application to the Royal Court and they will determine how they (indistinct) the matter.
DEFENDANT: And do I have to make a physical further application or is merely what I have said here today that I wish to appeal, is that sufficient notice?
JUDGE SHAW: I think you would have to lodge notice.
LEGAL ADVISER: I would suggest that Mr. Syvret speaks with the Judicial Greffier or the Deputy Judicial Greffier Madam.
JUDGE SHAW: They will advise you as to how to proceed. Thank you very much Mr. Syvret, you may leave. Oh I apologise, thank you for your Sweet and Maxwell.
That is the end of day 1
