In October 2013 VFC published a Blog explaining the Regulation of Investigation Powers Law (RIPL) Which can be read HERE.
With the recent appointment to Commissioner of the Royal Court, John Nutting QC, a number of fundamental questions arise. As reported in the previous posting on this subject (above link) Mr. Nutting's Official Role was, and possibly still is, Commissioner appointed to scrutinise intelligence gathering of secret means of telephone interceptions and bugging conducted by the police, customs and UK Intelligents agencies such as MI5/MI6 and others.
Mr. Nutting QC has seen the transcripts of intercepted phone-calls/transcripts and audio recordings of bugging devices.
What checks are in place to ensure he is not conflicted in his new role, indeed in his previous role as a Jersey Appeal Court Judge?Everything he would have seen in his role as commissioner under RIPL, and other laws, would not be admissible in a court of law. For example intercepted telephone communications between criminals cannot be used as evidence in a court. But in his previous(?) role Sir John Nutting will have seen large volumes of that material. Which as a judge he is not permitted to know anything about.......But he knows EVERYTHING about!
From a layman's point of view this seems to raise a serious compromise. How can defendants and defence lawyers be sure that they will get a fair trial when the judge may have seen intelligence that is not allowed to be used in court? Article 6 ECHR which gives everyone "a right to trial by a fair and impartial court" surely must come in to play here?
Who has ultimate oversight/responsibility of this arrangement/appointment? Who is Sir John Nutting QC accountable to? What was the appointment process? Who was part of the appointment process? Who is going to ensure defendants Article 6 rights are protected? The discredited, and disgraced, local State Media is STILL doing what it always does and churned out another Establishment Press Release without questioning it (Nutting appointment). When a growing number of concerned Islanders do not trust, what has been described as, our corrupt and politicised "JUSTICE" SYSTEM why would the State Media choose not to question this appointment? In the most recent Island Social Survey, it has been reported that 50% of those surveyed didn't trust the "justice" system, and 60% didn't trust the local "accredited" (State) Media and it has once more been left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media) to question authority/The Party Line on an issue so fundamental as a right to a fair and impartial hearing. Perhaps those with a legal brain could help answer some of these questions?
Team Voice would like to take this opportunity to remind readers of the (hard fought for) Child Abuse Committee of Inquiry that is currently under way. We are in constant, and constructive, dialogue with the panel and as readers would expect we plan to submit a substantial amount of evidence to the Inquiry. Those who wish to submit their own evidence can do so by e-mailing the panel directly here info@jerseycareinquiry.org or by visiting its website HERE.
For anyone needing help or support in giving evidence/deciding to give evidence or not or general support and advice the Jersey Care Leavers Association (JCLA) can be contacted by e-mail at jsycareleavers@jerseymail.co.uk or telephoned at 01534-738351.