This is the unmistakable conclusion of a respected Jersey lawyer Advocate Philip Sinel. In the interests of freedom of information we are publishing a letter which Mr. Sinel wrote to the Jersey's authorities. This letter (as the final page shows) has been widely circulated.
As Jersey's ruling elites have a habit of conducting witch hunts and
vendettas, we would like to make it clear this letter has not been given
to us by Mr. Sinel. We have not spoken to him. The letter has been given
to us by a concerned citizen who wishes that despite the Stalinist attitudes
of the Jersey establishment there should be a wide public debate about
the issues. We are happy to oblige.
16" July 1998
The Batonnier
22 Grenville Street
St Helier
Jersey JE4 8PX
Dear Batonnier,
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN JERSEY
1. As a result of my representation of the Plaintiffs' in what is colloquially known as the Mayo litigation (1) and of Senator Syvret, in the course of Senator Syvret's dispute with the States of Jersey and the subsequent litigation against Messrs Bailhache and Hamon, it has become clear to me that there is need for a radical reappraisal of a number of aspects of the Administration of Justice in Jersey. It is my purpose in writing this letter to you and in sending it to those to whom it is copied to divest myself of any burden, which 1 may have involuntarily assumed in relation to those defects.
2. It is not the responsibility of any one practitioner to oversee the manner in which justice is administered. That responsibility rests fairly and squarely with those who have volunteered for such burdens. In other words, yourself as Head of the Bar, the Bar itself, the officers of the Law Society, the Members of the Law Society and the Legislature.
3. It is a matter of public record that there has been extensive correspondence between my firm and the Home office in relation to the actions and inactions of the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.
4. It is not my purpose in writing this letter, to give further vent to those criticisms. The actions which 1 hope to provoke you and others into taking, will, 1 hope, be to sponsor sweeping changes of a systemic nature. It is not therefore necessary for me to deal at any great length great length with what some people have classified as being the failings of the individuals concerned. It will however be necessary I am afraid to examine specific actions and inactions because they highlight systemic weaknesses.
(1) Mayo et al – v- Cantrade and Touche Ross
Mayo et al – v- Young and Others
Mayo et al- v- FEC
5. I think the easiest method of dealing with the systemic problems to which 1 have referred is to observe closely the function of the various offices in question in relation to the Mayo litigation and related matters and then to suggest what lessons of a systemic nature may be learned therefrom. As I said at the beginning, my disquiet and my firmly held belief that the Administration of Justice in Jersey needs a radical overhaul stems, in the main, from the Mayo and Syvret litigation, however, I also wish to add some observations of my own in relation to the function and future of both the Court of Appeal and of the learned Jurats.
6. Before going on to deal with the specifies of my disquiet I think it is necessary for me to state from what is at least my own perspective and hopefully that of others why they are of importance in any society and why in our society they have enormous economic significance.
7. The Administration of Justice and the perception of the administration of justice is a mark of society's advancement, it is in crude terms one of the delineators between a civilised society and an uncivilised society. The administration of justice should have a purity, both of design and execution, without such purity the organs concerned may well fail either to administrator justice or to be perceived to do so. For a number of reasons, which I shall come to in a moment, 1 believe that there is an absence of confidence in many sectors both within and without the Island in the system that presently stands. The root cause of that absence of confidence and of the manifest failure of the system as it presently stands to demonstrate purity of intent and purity of execution stems in large part from a confusion of roles.
8. It has long been the hallmark of civilised societies that the legislature and executive are kept completely isolated from the judiciary. It is not necessary for me to explain to you or any of the recipients of this letter why we need and indeed should have had a long time ago a separation of powers. It is perhaps easy for people in our position to assume that the public neither know nor care why this should be so. I am not a politician, however, 1 have had the opportunity over the last few years to discuss with many ordinary members of the public the defect in the Island's constitution to which 1 have just referred. Vernon Tomes had a landslide victory at the penultimate Senatorial hustings; one of the main planks of his election campaign was the separation of the judiciary from the legislature. One of the most important functions of the English judicial system is to prevent the oppression of the people by the government, clearly it cannot do so or be seen to do so where the very same individuals sit astride both horses, this is a very real matter of concern to ordinary litigants.
9. 1 referred earlier to extensive correspondence with inter alia the Home Office. The failures of the system as it stands have been nowhere more manifest than in the course of the Mayo litigation. This litigation has received enormous coverage world-wide. Indeed, it has received far more accurate and incisive coverage abroad than it has in the Island. This means that opponents of the Island are now very well armed and in a position to make justified and informed attacks on this Island. This Island's position 's always precarious and has been historically so for over a millennia. We are now in a position where opponents of the Island are educated, informed and in a position to make justifiable criticisms of the Island. It would therefore be 'wise' were the Island to face up to the challenge and to act in its own best interests before changes are imposed upon us by the Home Office or forced upon us as a result of scrutiny and/or criticism from elsewhere outside the Island.
10. As we are all aware, the Island's principle source of revenue is the finance industry. By virtue of a mixture of both luck and judgement the Island has established a very good legislational structure in relation to both trusts and companies. What we now need to do, in the interest of the future financial prosperity of the Island is to ensure that those laws which are so fundamental to the wellbeing of what is presently a low tax area, but with help could well evolve into a centre of excellence for the administration of other people's assets. We need to ensure that the enforcement of the Islands laws becomes a matter of national pride and, indeed, a producer of invisible earnings.
11. The English Bar and judiciary are internationally renowned. Easy resort to competent Courts and lawyers is an enormous asset to any finance centre or tax haven. England is both of those things and we would do well to emulate their example.
MAYO - WHAT WENT WRONG?
12. The Plaintiffs' discovered in December 1993 they had been the victims of a very substantial fraud and they had a discrepancy on their books of approximately US$27m. A formal complaint was made to the Police in December 1993. Whatever the complexities of the situation it was clear at that very early stage that Dr Young had produced a series of false invoices and receipts over a period of five years for the purpose and/or with the effect of obtaining over US$2m profit related commission to which he was not entitled. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out therefrom that a substantial fraud contrary to the common law of the Island had been perpetrated by Dr Young to the prejudice of Mayo. This much was apparent and clear on its face in December 1993..
13. After December 1993, the Plaintiffs' state of knowledge as to the fraud perpetrated upon it by Dr Young improved dramatically and it was clear that Cantrade and certain of its officers bore responsibility for the losses suffered by the Plaintiffs'. Thereafter, the Attorney General's Office was force fed with witness statements, documents, accountants reports and miscellaneous information.
14. The Plaintiffs' rapidly became alarmed by the absence not only of progress but of apparent enthusiasm being manifested by the Attorney General, thereafter, they expressed surprise and alarm in writing to the Attorney General on no less than four occasions . . The Plaintiffs' found the responses incredible and in 1996 a formal complaint was made to the Home Office to the effect that the Attorney General was not fulfilling adequately or at all the functions of this office. It appeared to the Plaintiffs' that thereafter the prosecution of inter alia Young was progressed with less reluctance.
15. The eventual conclusion of the prosecution of Young Williams, Stoneman and Cantrade is a matter of public record. It was a pathetic failure. It does not matter how much propaganda is issued or what brave statements are made, the point is that the majority the charges preferred had to be abandoned, because they were too late. Charges were not preferred of fraud contrary to the common law.
16. Young, was charged on 3 1 " August 1996 with 11 offences, Williams was charged in November 1996 with 16 offences, Stoneman was charged in October 1996 with 24 offences and Cantrade was charged in November 1996 with 24 offences. Being aware of the dilatoriness of the prosecution the defence sought clarification from the Royal Court in relation to prescriptions. On the 17 h day March 1998 the Royal Court, presided over by Sir Godfrey Le Quesne sited that the majority of the charges brought were time barred. The number of convictions eventually obtained was; Cantrade with four, Stoneman with none, Young and Williams both with four.
17. The convictions such as they were all related to peripheral matters post June 1993. No charges were pursued and no convictions obtained in relation to Mayo's US$27m loss. It is not my intention in relating the above matter to further castigate the Attorney General. The point of the above recital is this, that the Plaintiffs' and many of their investors, and certain informed persons do not see the disastrous prosecution of Cantrade et al as being a question of incompetence or unpreparedness. They believe that the Island deliberately failed to prosecute adequately or at all, in order to reduce the potential bad publicity to it of what I shall term as the Cantrade affair. In this belief the Plaintiffs' and others are supported by the very great numbers of hats that the Attorney General wears and in particular the fact that he is the legal adviser to the legislatures (2) and to the executive(3) as well as the Island's only prosecutor.
18. Shortly after the Plaintiffs (4) discovered they had been defrauded by Dr Young they discovered that Cantrade had appropriated the larger portion of the missing US$27m and that Cantrade had had an incestuous relationship with Dr Young. The Plaintiffs' discovered that:-
a) they had been trading at a loss for five years
b) some US$17 million Dollars had been transferred from their accounts
to the accounts of Cantrade
c) Dr Young lived in a house owned by Cantrade
d) each forex transaction had been subject to at least a four point
charge levied by Cantrade of which 50% was subsequently rebated by Cantrade
to Dr Young (5)
(2)The States of Jersey, (3)The Committees of the States of Jersey,
(4)In the Mayo litigation, (5)Cantrade dispute
the Plaintiffs' state of knowledge
19. As is a matter of public record, the Plaintiffs' and their individual
investors made a number of complaints of the actions of Cantrade to the
body empowered by the legislature to supervise banks in this jurisdiction
namely the Finance and Economics Committee. Their pleas for an investigation
of Cantrade fell upon deaf ears and judicial review proceedings were instituted.
20. When the Finance and Economics Committee decided not to investigate
Cantrade, a decision (which it has since maintained notwithstanding the
fact that Cantrade has been convicted of criminal offences in relation
to its forex dealings), it sought and obtained advice from the Attorney
General. The Attorney General not only apparently advised the FEC
not to investigate citing in part the fact that it would be a major undertaking
to investigate a subsidiary of the Union Bank of Switzerland" but he continued
to give advice to the Finance and Economics Committee whilst at the same
time overseeing the purported investigation and prosecution of Cantrade
in respect of the Plaintiffs' allegations of criminal offences arising
from precisely the same facts which gave rise to the Plaintiff s request
to the Finance and Economics Committee to investigate the activities of
Cantrade.
21. The Attorney General's conflict of interest was at that stage at least to the Plaintiff's minds manifest and apparent. The continued attempted exculpation of the Finance and Economics Committee by the Attorney General is believed by the Plaintiffs', many of their investors and certain other third parties to have formed at least part of the motivation behind his alleged failure to prosecute inter alia Cantrade and its officers adequately or at all.
The Solicitor General
22. When the Plaintiffs' pointed out what they perceived to be the Attorney General's conflict of interest they were informed that in future the representation of the Finance and Economics Committee would be undertaken by the Solicitor General. Whatever comfort the Plaintiffs' might have derived from this development was rapidly negated by the actions of the Solicitor General which proved beyond per adventure, that not only was there no attempt at a Chinese wall internally, but that the files maintained by the Attorney General in relation to the prosecution of inter alia Cantrade were available to the Solicitor General who made free use of the information there available for the general purpose of defending the Finance and Economics Committee's failure to investigate Cantrade and for the specific purpose of attempting to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs' allegations of criminal malfeasance by Cantrade and Young were questionable.
23. On the 12 th day of September 1995 representatives of the Plaintiffs' attended upon DI Hopper, Crown Advocate Pallot and an accountant retained by the Crown with a view to providing further information and explanations of the criminality of Young and Cantrade. During the course of that meeting the Plaintiffs' frankly admitted that although they were aware of evidence which suggested additional criminality by Cantrade, (i.e. allegations of further criminal conduct not so far made) they were aware that assembling the proof in relation thereto would be a difficult and onerous task for the prosecution. Not unnaturally, the Plaintiffs' believed that such a meeting was held in confidence between the offices of Her Majesty's Attorney General and their own legal advisers.
24. In February 1995 Dr Young attended a series of meetings with advisers of the Plaintiffs'. The Plaintiffs' advisers clandestinely tape recorded those meetings during the course of which meetings Dr Young described in great detail how both he and Cantrade had behaved fraudulently to the detriment of the Plaintiffs'. A transcript was prepared of those meetings and the evidence was sent both to the Police and to the Finance Committee.
25. During the course of an interlocutory hearing held on the 6th day of October 1996 between Mayo and the FEC, held for the purpose of indicating that the Plaintiffs' allegations of criminal malfeasance by Young and Cantrade were lacking in foundation, and/or substance, the Solicitor General did the following in open Court (in the presence of Peter Stoneman (6) whom the Solicitor General knew was attending Court as an observer on behalf of Cantrade):-
a) The minute of the meeting of the 12th day of September 1995, which the Plaintiffs' can only assume had been obtained from the files of the Attorney General relating to the prosecution of Cantrade was read in open Court in support of the contention that the Plaintiffs' allegations against Cantrade were either ill founded or lacking in substance.
b) Stated that in the opinion of the forensic accountant retained to
advise the Police in relation to the prosecution of Cantrade and Young,
the Solicitor General stated that the taped confessions of Young had little
probative value and that same were tainted by duress.
26. It is not my task here to further castigate the Solicitor General
but to look at the systematic lessons that can be leamt. Clearly,
these actions caused the Plaintiffs' alarm and distress. The Plaintiffs',
a number of their investors and other informed persons regard these inappropriate
actions as being caused by erroneous motivation arising out of the duality
of function of the Attorney General/Solicitor General's office. Clearly
it is inappropriate for those charged with the enforcement of the Island's
laws to be charged with simultaneously defending proceedings brought against
the executive for its alleged failures to fulfil their duties, which allegations
arise from precisely the same fails as gave rise to the Attorney General's
duty to prosecute.
(6) This is the same Peter Stoneman who was subsequently charged with
various aspects of criminal misconduct in relation to Cantrade's forex
activities.
Mr Hamon
27. I turn now to the actions of the presiding Judge Mr Hamon on that same date. Not only did Mr Hamon allow the Solicitor General to read aloud the minute of the meeting of 12th September 1995, but having had the origins of that minute explained to him, he went on to publicise same by including that minute in his written judgement. The Plaintiffs' and their advisers still fail to comprehend how this publication facilitated in any way the administration of justice. At that same hearing, Mr Hamon told the Plaintiffs' counsel [i.e. me], that 1 could not make submission which involved criticisms of the Attorney General and the discharge by him of the functions of his office.
28. The same judgement contained reference to my allegedly "immature and unfounded attacks upon the whole administration of justice in Jersey". I do not think I have to go further than to say that full and frank representation of clients cannot occur where council is being muzzled. Again it is not my purpose here to further castigate Mr Hamon. It is a matter of public record that the Plaintiffs' have accused Mr Hamon not simply of the appearance of bias but of actual bias. Those allegations had arisen in large part because of Mr Hamon's duality of function; he is at once a judge and a member of the legislature. This gives him a profound conflict of interest. A conflict of interest which has had profound consequences for the reputation of the Island, Des Pas Holdings Ltd has also accused Mr Hamon of actual bias: this again arose in proceedings where the interests of the litigant conflicted with those of the State.
29. The Plaintiffs', some of their investors and certain third parties believe that the actions of the Deputy Bailiff outlined above came about because he was influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by virtue of the fulfilment by him of this dual function.
Mr Hamon and The Secret Hearing
30 Robert Young was owed a sum of money by Cantrade as a result of dealings
between those two parties. The Plaintiffs' contended that Cantrade
held such monies as it owed to Robert Young on constructive trust for the
Plaintiffs' and/or other creditors of Young and his companies. On
Friday 21't July 1995, the Court agreed upon the ex parte application of
Cantrade to accept from Cantrade £322,6'37.22 because Cantrade wanted
the directions of the Court as to what it should do with those monies.
31. On 25th July 1995 the Court presided over by the Deputy Bailiff entertained ex parte an application by Mr and Mrs Young for release of the monies in question. 1 only became aware of the application in question because my partner, Advocate Melia stumbled across this application in a wholly fortuitous manner. Becoming aware that this matter was proceeding ex parte. I wrote a letter that same day to Mr Hamon.
32. Mr Hamon gave judgement on 25th July 1995. It terminated with
the words "in the circumstances we have no alternative but to say that
the interested parties must be convened before payment out can be made".
Mr Hamon also refers to having received correspondence from Advocate Le
Quesne in confidence. Judges in this jurisdiction should not receive
correspondence "in confidence" from parties to contested litigation.
33.. There then followed an exchange in open Court which was recorded between Advocate Le Quesne who appeared for Mr and Mrs Young and Mr Hamon during the course of which Dr Young's counsel pressed strenuously for the payment to himself rather than to anyone else of £80,000. Mr Hamon's decision in that respect was quite clear, there was to be no interim distribution.
34. In due course notice was given to the Plaintiffs' through myself that an inter parties hearing was to be held on 16th August 1995. I attended those proceedings on behalf of my clients, Cantrade withdrew their application for directions and I was informed by Mr Hamon that he had already, that is to say in my absence, at a time and on a date unknown to me, decided to release some £80,000 directed to Advocate Le Quesne.
The Plaintiffs' and some of their investors and certain informed third parties believe that Mr Hamon's actions were not the result of incompetence but suspect that he was influenced consciously or unconsciously by virtue of his position as head of the legislature.
MR BAILHACHE
35. 1 turn now to the role played by the Bailiff during the course of the Mayo litigation. The Bailiff sat on various interlocutory aspects of this litigation from 1994 until February 1998. With few exceptions nearly every decision he made ran or was perceived by the Plaintiffs as running counter to the interests of the Plaintiffs'.
36. The culmination of these interlocutory decisions was the granting of Cantrade's novel application to force the Plaintiffs' to disclose to Cantrade the identities of the Plaintiffs' creditors in order that Cantrade could acquire from its creditors their rights of action from the Plaintiffs'. The Plaintiffs' regarded the granting by the Royal Court of the relief sought in that novel application as being beyond preposterous. It was a decision the Court of Appeal had no hesitation in reversing.
37. The culmination of the Plaintiffs' disquiet was a series of recusal applications founded initially upon the absence of a separation of powers and subsequently upon the content of a more than unfortunate speech given by the Bailiff to the Society of Chartered and Certified Accountants, on the 16th day of November 1996. A copy of that speech is annexed.
38. In a country where there was a de facto separation of powers it would have been inconceivable that such a speech would have been given by a sitting judge. One can argue as to what exactly the speech meant but the facts are undeniable. Namely that a sitting judge opined publicly in relation to criticism made of the Island, by Plaintiffs' in proceedings before its Courts, which proceedings were founded upon the same substantive facts which gave rise to the criticisms made of the Island. One can see why the head of Jersey's legislature might make such a speech but no judge should have done so.
39. The net effect of the above speech and the Plaintiffs' disappointment
and non- comprehension of the numerous adverse interlocutory decisions
rendered by the Bailiff and of the simultaneous fulfilment by the Bailiff
of a political and judicial role has been for the Plaintiffs', some of
their investors and certain informed third parties to conclude that the
Bailiff whilst discharging his judicial function was influenced consciously
or unconsciously to deny the Plaintiffs' justice because political consideration
"militated" against the Plaintiffs' succeeding in their litigation.
SENATOR SYVRET
40. As we are all aware, Senator Syvret has taken out proceedings against the Bailiff and the Deputy Bailiff. Those proceedings are concerned wholly with the discharge by the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff of their functions as head of the legislature. The allegations contained in the pleadings are in short form as follows:-
a) That the Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff involved themselves in partisan political
actions for the purpose of exculpating Senator Jeune from his predicament
b) That they in various ways perverted the democratic process for that
purpose
c) That the Bailiff threatened Senator Syvret in order to affect the
manner in which he discharged his representative function
d) That the Bailiff wilfully mislead the States of Jersey in order
to obtain a decision he wanted which would impeach Senator Syvret
41. Whether or not there is any substance in the above allegations is immaterial. The important point is that the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are judges. Had they not simultaneously been carrying out a dual function we would not now be faced with the position where those charged by the State with administering and upholding justice in this Island have been publicly accused of perverting the democratic process.
THE LEARNED JURATS
42. The Jurats' role arises purely as a result of historical accident. That having been said, the Le Quesne Committee concluded in 1982 that a tribunal of three made a far better tribunal of fact than a tribunal of one. Thus notwithstanding the fact that their position has evolved by accident, it has been concluded that they form an important part of the judicial decision making process. Therefore, whilst we have persons of ability and integrity who are willing to serve the Island in this way, we should ensure that their positions are properly recognised and respected.
43.. In this connection, 1 have a number of suggestions to make:-
a) the first is that when addressing the Court, counsel should be encouraged to differentiate between the issues of law and the issues of fact thus ensuring that the learned Jurats know precisely what it is they are being asked to decide and the presiding judge takes pains not to interfere except in the case of deadlock on questions of pure fact.
b) Consideration should be given to providing education and/or training to Jurats.
c) Jurats should be perceived to be and respected as independent assessors of fact. That means that they are not subordinate to the presiding judge whilst one hopes that the Judge and Jurats will be able to work in a sympathetic and co-operative manner we should all be clear what their respective roles are.
d) Insofar as it is possible in our small community the learned Jurats should sever their ties with politicians and business so that they are seen to be and are respected by the public as independent assessors of fact. They are there to prevent a wrong findings of fact being made by judges of law, they are a further check/balance.
e) Judgement rendered by the Royal Court should differentiate clearly between findings of law and of fact. This will make the task of an appellant court easier and will enable law reports to be produced which deal as they should with law and not with mixed law and fact.
44. In recent times, two proposed amendments have been put forward in relation to the function of the learned Jurats. Those propositions are, firstly that it is possible to dispense with Jurats upon certain occasions and secondly that we should narrow the constitution of the electoral college. (Because it is inconvenient to have a lot of people voting). It is my view that these proposed reforms will cumulatively have a seriously adverse effect on the quality of decisions made. Allowing persons to pick and choose in relation to the participation or otherwise of the Jurats, is the thin end of the wedge which will lead inevitably to the abolition of the Jurats as we know them; secondly, narrowing of the electoral college will lead to the perception and perhaps the actuality of jobs for the boys. Jurats should not be, nor should they be seen to be part of the establishment. As said previously one of the primary functions of the judiciary is to prevent the oppression of the people by the government. If lay assessors of fact are to remain, as a further balance, then they should be drawn from as wide and as democratic a base as possible. The proposed alterations to the roles/election of Jurats is particularly inappropriate given that a large portion of the judiciary presently simultaneously fulfils a political role.
45. 1 am including my thoughts in relation to the Court of Appeal simply because this is an opportunity to do so and to share my view with you and with my colleagues. The matters, which I have referred to above are of enormous importance and are matters for considerable alarm which should be addressed forthwith. Put simply, the administration of justice in Jersey is in crisis to the detriment of the fabric of society and of the economy. The functioning of the Court of Appeal is not, however, in crisis.
THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
46. The Court of Appeal has for many years been a great strength. It is in the main composed of persons of immence ability, integrity and experience who habitually have no permanent ties to the Island. The only obvious exception of course being Sir Godfrey Le Quesne who managed to combine all of the above qualities with an abiding interest in the wellbeing of the Island.
47. The Court of Appeal is almost entirely constituted from a panel of English QCs. You do not become a QC without demonstrating considerable expertise, however, that expertise is limited to the sphere in which that person practices. The upper echelons of the English Bar are peopled entirely by specialists; they are not general practitioners. There is very little overlap between certain areas of the Bar and nowhere is this more apparent than in the areas of crime and commercial law, where there is practically no intermingling at all. How, therefore, can we expect a commercial practitioner to display the same level of comprehension and experience in relation to a criminal appeal that he would in relation to an area in which he has been practising for over twenty-five years? The same consideration applies equally to a criminal practitioner hearing for example a complex case involving the application of the Island's Trust Law.
48. The list for the quarterly sessions of the Court of Appeal grows ever longer, a very large portion of which is now concerned with criminal appeals. Would it not therefore be in the interests of all were we to have different constituted Courts for civil and criminal matters? Whatever the ability of a Judge it cannot be correct for him to attempt to sit in judgement in relation to a matter where in his country of origin he would not consider himself competent to opine let alone adjudicate.
CONCLUSION
49. The problems which 1 have outlined above are very real and very pressing. There is I believe a ground swell of support for the separation of judiciary from the legislature. There can to my mind be no reason on an academic or practical level to continue with the present system, equally there is an urgent need for a formal statement of the Attorney General's roles and an examination whether certain of those roles should be curtailed. For example, there is nothing to prevent a committee, which is subject to litigation from obtaining competent assistance from the Island's practitioners. The proposals, which 1 have made and the problems, which 1 have outlined are in many respect familiar to the ordinary man in the street. The Island could do itself a great deal of good by addressing those problems and it would I think enjoy the support of the ordinary litigant in so doing.
50. Finally, 1 said at the beginning of this letter that I wish
to divest myself of whatever responsibility 1 perceive that I had in relation
to these matters. By writing this letter 1 have so done. Whilst
1 am more than happy to provide documentary evidence in relation to the
matters set out herein I am not going to provide either motivation or assistance
in relation to an examination of the current system or the implementation
of any changes. 1 never wished the burden, which has been placed upon me.
I did not volunteer for it and have not been elected to carry it.
The responsibility for dealing with the matters set out herein lies fairly
and squarely with yourself and those others to whom this letter is copied.
Yours sincerely
Advocate Philip Sinel, TEP
C.C. Mr J. Straw (Home Secretary)
Mr B.A. Edwards
Jurats
Judges
Advocates Ecrivains
Legislators