| Author | Message | ||
| Wendy De Bourgonniere Guest |
I WISH to write in support of the person who wrote about the young man with hearing problems jailed for assault. I can say that didn't surprise me at all. There are many injustices carried out on this island, and not least by our police force. My family were let down badly by the police a few years ago and I even wrote to every deputy about my plight but I'm afraid nothing made any difference, and until someone is faced with this problem they cannot believe the stress it causes. So my sympathy is with this young man and his family. WENDY DE BOURGONNIERE. | ||
| Anon Guest |
A SIX-months suspended sentence for possessing 255 indecent images of children? (Guernsey Press, 5 January 2010). It's like a slap on the wrist and a slap in the face for all children out there who deserve to be protected from such people. I think it's disgusting, especially coupled with the fact that Nicholas Sealley has been on unconditional bail for the last few weeks, so has been able to be around children and use the internet as he pleases. What has to happen before preventative measures are taken? I note his rather pathetic excuse of being 'under a lot of stress' at the time of searching for these images. Well, let's hope he doesn't become stressed again or who knows what else he could find himself doing? The courts have much more of an obligation to protect Guernsey's children. A quote from his advocate states that 'an immediate prison sentence would have a devastating impact on his client's mental health'. I'm sure I speak for many parents and normal people when I say that I couldn't give a fig (that's the most polite way I can think of putting it) about his mental health. I care about the mental health of children who are abused and used in indecent images. Since the courts don't seem to have served justice, I hope that karma does and that somewhere down the line this 'man' gets his comeuppance and rots. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Anon Guest |
RE. GUERNSEY Press of 18 December, 'Stayed on after holiday and stole to fund habits'. How can the powers that be allow a foreign worker to stay in our island when not only has she stolen from our Town Church, but then proceeds to break the law again, not once, but a total of 10 times? (The total number of charges brought against her). It's bad enough she wasn't deported the first time but she then proceeds to abuse the island's hospitality again by committing more crime. Now not only do we have to pay her board and lodgings for four months but she is going to be allowed to stay on her release. If our courts can't afford to deport her, I'm sure we could have a whip around to pay for a one way ticket. Why, oh why are we allowing non locals to commit all sorts of crimes without being deported? And before anyone bleats on about human rights, what about the rights of the individuals they have offended? I know we need non locals to fill jobs etc. but if you break the law you should be out. Name and address withheld. | ||
| Bob Perkins Guest |
FOLLOWING what I thought was a well argued letter from Simon Orton, which you published on 27 October, in which he pointed out some dangers with the British jury system, I notice in today's Guernsey Press (12 November) that Richard de Putron Cohen is still claiming that it would be beneficial for Guernsey to move from a jurat system to a jury system. Mr Cohen has not, though, addressed any of the points in Mr Orton's letter, and has done little more than make points, which are quite similar to those in his earlier letter, which you published on 9 October. He does, though, refer in passing to what he describes as the 'conseillers saga'. And yes, some years ago we did try to mend another system that wasn't broken, when we abolished conseillers in the apparent name of democracy. Since then, we have had comment in your newspaper during at least the last two deputy elections about lack of continuity in States membership, not to mention seemingly constant comment about the quality of some States decision making. One could also add that there has been evident a distinct element of short-term thinking about some States decisions. So, bearing in mind the special circumstances of our small island, not only ought we to be cautious of trying to mend a jurat system which seems, as far as I can see, to be working on the whole, but maybe we also ought to revisit the question of whether reintroducing a modified sort of conseiller system could bring us some benefits. What, for example, about the possibility of reintroducing conseillers, but for say eight- or 10-year terms (but eligible for re-election) instead of for 'life' as was previously the case? Election could be from existing States members and could be by the States as before, or, in this computer age, quite possibly by the people. Elections would have to be held when vacancies occurred or terms of office ended, rather than at set dates, as is the case with deputies' elections. Alternatively, maybe an appointment as 'minister' could automatically carry an eight- or 10-year term, during which they would not have to be re-elected as a deputy. Would the possibility of a longer period of tenure attract and retain more able people in the States? Not everybody I'm sure relishes the prospect of the hurly burly of a competitive deputies election every four years. BOB PERKINS | ||
| Richard de Putron Cohen Guest |
THE jurat issue has all the trappings of the conseillers saga - both staying in 'office' far too long for any good they might have done. With the Guernsey electorate finally achieving full, democratic voting rights in 1994, it is now the turn of the jurats, and who better to champion the sovereignty of 'trial by jury' and vacate their role in the Royal Court? Justice is not best served by a feudal coterie, but by public participation, which is 'the lamp that shows freedom lives' in any right-minded land. Sooner, rather than later, it will be the court of public opinion that will give its verdict on this outstanding travesty of justice. RICHARD DE PUTRON COHEN | ||
| Chris Bradshaw Guest |
I HAVE been disappointed to read the recent letters from Richard de Putron Cohen and Harry Orton about the jurat system, as I feel that there was in them criticism of the jurats themselves. I happen to feel strongly that we are fortunate in Guernsey to have jurats within our judicial system, but I understand that others hold different views. But what I feel we should all recognise is that jurats work very hard within the system. They spend countless hours in the Royal Court listening to the proceedings in criminal and civil cases, so as to make informed judgments of fact. They carry on this work until they are at least 70 years of age and very frequently until the age of 75. In due course there will be 16 jurats. I find it heartening that each time there is an election, capable people are prepared to put their names forward for this onerous position. Their splendid robes may give a fillip to their self-esteem. They enjoy some minor privileges. But that is of small account compared with the amount of work they do for us. They are excellent servants of Guernsey. CHRIS BRADSHAW. | ||
| Simon Orton Guest |
IT IS not often that I disagree with my father but I feel that there are aspects of his and other writers' arguments (Guernsey Press, 22 October), which they have not considered from a practical point of view and from the position of members of a local community who wish to see 'justice' within their society. I am a senior police officer in a constabulary in the north east of England and have previously served for several years in London. I have practical experience of jury trials in both of these geographical areas where defendants have faced charges of the most trivial nature up to homicide. On many occasions I have been horrified by the standards of verdicts brought by juries. When faced with even the most overwhelming evidence they have found in favour of a 'peer'. A cynic may say that the police and prosecution had simply failed to prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt' but I am certain that the intelligence, upbringing and cultural backgrounds of many jurors invoked such prejudice that their deep-seated beliefs prevailed over even the most compelling evidence. It is well known within London that the acquittal rates at Snaresbrook and Inner London Crown Courts are exceptionally and disproportionately high - the result of the catchment areas from which the jurors are selected. I have witnessed jurors fall asleep in the middle of criminal trials and have experienced trials involving high-level criminals where it is apparent that jurors have been influenced or intimidated. I have often noted the glazed countenances of jurors struggling to grasp the most basic principles of law and evidence and some of the questions posed from juries, which have retired to consider a verdict, have left me pondering whether I have actually sat through the same trial. While the system of juror selection has been vastly improved in recent years, it is still possible for a skilled defence counsel to pick a jury which will best serve the interests of a client. This way any potential juror who wears a smart suit, carries a copy of a 'broadsheet' newspaper or simply looks 'middle class' is challenged and rejected. Truly 'professional' people rarely or never sit on juries either because of this de-selection or because they manage to avoid this social duty because of their professional commitments. Seasoned criminals will always seek jury trial for even the most minor of indictable offences. Aside from the fact that arraignment takes longer for jury trial and thus allowing freedom on bail before any potential sentence of imprisonment, serial offenders realise that they will always have a fighting chance of an acquittal before a jury. While there are undoubtedly moral or ethical arguments to abolish trial by Jurat there is still much weight in the present system and I would strongly counsel against such mooted change. SIMON ORTON, Durham. | ||
| Harry Orton Guest |
THE speed with which Jurat Le Page appeared on Radio Guernsey on the early morning news bulletin on Saturday 10 October to explain that jurats were not paid for 'jury service' suggests that Richard Cohen's letter (Guernsey Press, 9 October), under the heading 'Scrap this feudal hangover and give us a common jury' hit a nerve. I did not read into Mr Cohen's letter anything that complained about jurats receiving payment for jury service. What I did read was a suggestion that 'trial by jurat' is not as fair as 'trial by jury'. In any case, what is wrong with jurors receiving compensation for loss of earnings while on jury service? This has long been the position in England and it does allow a wider cross section of the population to serve as jurors. In Guernsey we have a group of up to 16 jurats who act as exclusive jurors and, to the best of my knowledge, have no earnings to lose - when did we last have an employed person elected as a jurat? Deputy Rihoy was recently courting the views of the public on the make-up of the States of Election. As the sole purpose of the States of Election is to elect jurats, I submitted to the States Assembly and Constitution Committee the suggestion that before reviewing the constitution and role of the States of Election, perhaps a review of the role of jurat should be undertaken. Leaving aside the question of 'trial by jurat', the other roles of a jurat appear to be withering away. My understanding is that wills of realty no longer have to be witnessed by two jurats. I also believe that their presence in the 'property transactions court' will, in due course, be deemed unnecessary. Both of these functions appear to date back to the time when the majority of islanders were illiterate. In any case, returning to the question of 'trial by jurat', it can only be a matter of time before some court of human rights will rule that Guernsey's system of 'trial by jurat' is not human rights compliant. I hope Mr Cohen makes his feelings officially known to SACC. HARRY ORTON. GP Editor's footnote: Senior Jurat Derek M. Le Page responds: 'The sole purpose of my comments, in response to an approach from BBC Guernsey and in my recently published letter to you, was to clarify the misconception that jurats seek election for monetary reward. Any other issues relating to the role of jurats are best debated elsewhere.' | ||
| Richard de Putron Cohen Guest |
WHAT a pity that the senior jurat was unable to give your readers any salient figures on the 'fees' he and his colleagues receive, so as to allay 'misconceptions' [Guernsey Press, Open Lines, 14 October]. His semantics apart, the 'take home pay' in 2007 was £12,500* per jurat for a part-time feudal imposition. He suggests that the sum is not of much significance. Lucky him. RICHARD DE PUTRON COHEN. *Figures from Treasury and Resources | ||
| J. Torode Guest |
I TOTALLY agree with Richard De Putron Cohen's letter of 9 October 2009, 'Scrap this feudal hangover and give us a common jury.' I do not doubt the integrity of any past or present Jurats. I am quite sure they see their appointment as an honour and a chance to serve the community, but this system should have no place in a democratic system and should be consigned to history along with Fiefdoms (re the Cobo car park farce) and all the remaining traces of feudal rule. J. TORODE | ||
| Derek Le Page Guest |
A LETTER from Richard du Putron Cohen was published by you on 9 October. I do not wish to comment upon his views, but I do need to correct an inaccuracy in his letter. The Jurats do not receive any monetary reward for the time they spend in the criminal and civil courts. That they do is a misconception shared by many. Fees are paid by clients in the Contracts Court in respect of the Jurats witnessing the agreement of the parties to the relevant transaction. The aggregate of these fees is distributed to the Jurats annually. By definition the sum is variable, but historically it is at a level that would certainly not attract anyone to the post for financial reasons. All other work undertaken by the Jurats, which spreads well beyond providing ‘a jury’ in criminal trials, is provided at no cost to the taxpayer. | ||
| Richard de Putron Cohen Guest |
MORE paid jurats. Let us not countenance the enlargement and continuation of this medieval anachronism and its elitist role in the island's judicial system. While maybe not all are 'from the most notable, wise, loyal and rich men of the island,' they certainly do not have a great deal in common with most of our citizens. Not so long ago, one senior politician had been involved in the 'election' of eight of the 12 sitting jurats, via the magic circle system. And to think Tony Blair was accused of cronyism. If I ever come up for trial, I want 12 everyday islanders to decide my case. I am happy to take my chance with their education, intelligence and powers of concentration because experience has shown that they will deliver their verdict with lashings of common sense. The post of jurat, born of necessity when islanders could barely read or write, is now iniquitous and discriminates against the public who are deemed 'not right and proper persons to give a verdict'. The present 'nominated' imposition will surely soon fall foul of an external authority and bring further ridicule to the island. Should the States wish to hand out accolades, they will have to come up with something better than appointing select people to a paid permanent jury job. This feudal hangover should be swiftly consigned to the history books and replaced by a rightful jury. RICHARD DE PUTRON COHEN. | ||
| Larry Savident Guest |
FIRSTLY, thank you very much for printing my letter. I would like to take this opportunity to write further to my previous one and in doing so respond to HM Greffier Ken Tough's comments. HM Greffier states that Petty Debt judgments and Royal Court judgments are 'available for inspection by any member of the public.' One would think by his response that he means for research purposes and not for the purpose of selling it and making vast profits. Was he unaware perhaps that this privilege was being abused for a commercial purpose? My argument was not that these records were 'available for the inspection at the Greffe by any member of the public. No charge is made for reading these records' - I was querying how a company such as Channel Islands Data Services, which sells this information to third parties is and was allowed to go in and take it for free. This has not been answered in a satisfactory way. How many other companies take advantage in this way? Also, how on earth do we know that the information this company has taken in this way is accurate and up to date? When I apply for credit, I would like to know that what is being used to make a decision about me is accurate and not just the result of someone having an afternoon of photo taking? If I wanted that, I would go to a professional photographer. I hope that you publish this and I really would like a clear definitive answer as to why a company was allowed to do this and make profit without giving anything back to the taxpayers of Guernsey, as so far none has been forthcoming. LARRY SAVIDENT. | ||
| Anon Guest |
LICENSEES or properly trained staff should supervise pubs at all times (Guernsey Press 6 May 2009 'Drunks will slip through' and 6 July 2009 'Why the secrecy?'. In his reply to my follow-up letter, published by you on 6 July 2009, the chief officer of police refuses to answer the questions posed to him. Mr Le Page uses the excuse that the review of Pubwatch is 'still live', and I respect his decision as I too do not wish to reveal my identity as there are issues, the outcome of which may be prejudiced, by so doing. However, before challenging Mr Le Page's response, I took the precaution of asking the Data Protection Commissioner's office whether or not my last letter could be submitted to the Guernsey Press and received an affirmative answer, as this is a general interest matter. May I remind the chief officer that it was he who raised the subject of police powers of sanctions against errant licensees and referred to the Pubwatch scheme, when correcting the impression given by a senior member of his staff (who was allegedly misquoted by the Guernsey Press) that licensees are not responsible for the behaviour of drunks on their premises when the licensee is absent? I have had meetings over the past year with 'senior officers' up to and including the rank of chief superintendent relating to a number of issues, including the subject of my letter and responses have been unsatisfactory or evasive. For that reason I will not be taking up Mr Le Page's offer of a meeting at this time. Nor will I press for an answer to the question about Pubwatch as this can be followed up at a later date, but clearly the question of sanctions rather than prosecution is a public interest matter. I therefore repeat the relevant section of my previous letter: 'He (the chief officer) states that during 2007 'sanctions' were taken against seven licensed premises and against four during 2008. Please can Mr Le Page clarify exactly what those 'sanctions' were and how many of those incidents specifically related to the serving of alcohol to individuals who were already intoxicated? 'In what other sectors, where a specific licence has been granted for control purposes, are similar sanctions applied rather than pursuing prosecutions through the courts?' Name and address withheld. | ||
| George Le Page Guest |
Your correspondent is seeking clarification and it is clear that they have a great interest in this particular subject. In order that so far as is possible their questions are fully answered, rather than continue correspondence in the columns of your newspaper, I am quite prepared for either a senior officer of the force or myself to meet and discuss with your correspondent the concerns that they raise. Your correspondent also refers to an internal review of the Guernsey Pub Watch Scheme in 2008 by an officer of this force and also an investigation in 2009 by the Professional Standards Department. As I understand this matter is still live, it will be inappropriate at this time to comment further. George Le Page, Chief officer, Guernsey Police | ||
| Anon Guest |
LICENSEES or properly trained staff should supervise pubs at all times (Guernsey Press, 6 May 2009 - Drunks will slip through). I was interested to read the chief officer's reply to my letter published in the Guernsey Press on Monday 1 June. May I, through your column, seek clarification of certain remarks made by Mr Le Page. He states that during 2007 'sanctions' were taken against seven licensed premises and against four during 2008. Please can Mr Le Page clarify exactly what those 'sanctions' were and how many of those incidents specifically related to the serving of alcohol to individuals who were already intoxicated? In what other sections, where a specific licence has been granted for control purposes, are similar sanctions applied rather than pursuing prosecutions through the courts? Mr Le Page refers to Guernsey Pubwatch as 'an established scheme which has been running for several years ensuring unruly and drunken behaviour within pubs and nightclubs is dealt with in the appropriate manner'. The Pubwatch scheme could be an effective crime prevention measure if it is run in accordance with UK national guidelines. Can Mr Le Page confirm that following a legal challenge in 2008 the police immediately resigned from their secretarial role in the Guernsey Pubwatch scheme? Can he also confirm that despite an internal review of the Guernsey scheme in 2008 by the Research and Development Inspector, and a further investigation in 2009 by Professional Standards, both of which attempted to avoid police responsibilities for serious shortcomings, an independent review has confirmed that there were breaches of Data Protection principles by the police, and the reason for their withdrawal as secretary was because of concerns that Human Rights obligations had been ignored? There is no evidence to support a view that the Guernsey Pubwatch scheme has made any significant contribution to preventing alcohol-related crime in Guernsey. In the chief officer's report of 2007 there were 10 persons on Pubwatch (whose names had been added to the scheme over a period of several years) and cumulatively 2,933 alcohol related offences were reported in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Obviously not all of these would have been directly attributable to failings by licensees, and I am not suggesting that individuals are not responsible for their own actions. I emphasise the sentiment in my previous letter that once intoxicated an individual's judgement is impaired (why else are we subjected to drink-drive laws?). On the other hand the success of the 'alcohol free zones' is a clear demonstration that prevention by appropriate control is a better option. Effective control of the sale of alcohol by licensees, in accordance with island laws, would go a long way to reducing alcohol related crime, release officers in an already stretched workforce to concentrate on other issues and make best use of the limited budget available. I entirely agree with the chief officer that the vast majority of licensees are responsible professionals. Indeed I said so in my original letter. I also agree that there are occasions when standards fall short of expectations and it is on those occasions that the focus should be on the minority whose 'human frailty' makes them unsuitable candidates for the responsibilities of a licensee, or on the prosecution of those who prove 'neglectful or incompetent'. Police support given to licensees is entirely appropriate, especially to those who are relatively new to the responsibilities that the role demands. However, where trouble repeatedly occurs the question has to be asked, when should support give way to prosecution? Name and address withheld | ||
| George Le Page Guest |
I have discussed the article and your correspondent's letter with Chief Inspector Falla. I understand that the quotation your reporter has used in the article followed a lengthy discussion and the comment regarding licensee absence has been portrayed somewhat out of context. It is Chief Inspector Falla's recollection that he was asked 'how often do licensees have to be on 'premises' during licensing hours?' and this was explained with the officer adding that most licensees had followed guidelines and all had to have staff trained to the requisite level within the guidelines. Any system, no matter how stringent, can only be as good as the people operating it and police are there not only to enforce the law but also to seek to provide support to licensees who experience difficulty. Police, when visiting licensed premises, are not only looking out for offences but are seeking to ensure that the licensee knows that if they have a particularly difficult situation to deal with which goes beyond their remit, police will respond as soon as practicable. The support provided is not a soft option. During 2007, sanctions were taken against seven licensed premises and against four in 2008. There are currently two enquiries in process which could result in court action being taken against licensees. Since the introduction of the requirements as set out by your correspondent, 1,059 people have passed the two-tier test and trained staff are now present in 252 of the island's 278 registered licensed premises. The island police also liaise closely with the drug and alcohol strategy and the GLVA developing initiatives to curb underage drinking in both licensed and unlicensed premises, such as introducing an 18-plus proof of age scheme and Guernsey Pubwatch, an established scheme which has been running for several years ensuring unruly and drunken behaviour within pubs and nightclubs is dealt with in the appropriate manner. In the main, the vast majority of licensees are responsible professionals but as in all walks of life there are occasions when either through human frailty, incompetence or by neglect those principles are not adhered to but it is important to look proportionately at the whole situation and not to focus on the many well run licensed establishments in this island. George Le Page, Chief Officer of Police | ||
| Anon Guest |
I REFER to the article in the Guernsey Press on 6 May [Drunks will slip through] which reported the response to Judge Finch's warning in the Royal Court that licences could be revoked should drunken people be served alcohol. Not for the first time has a Guernsey court expressed its concern over the conduct of licensees in this way. Almost on a daily basis the Guernsey Press reports the prosecutions of individuals who have been accused of alcohol-related offences. Many of these relate to anti-social behaviour on Friday and Saturday nights, following an evening spent in the Town's pubs and clubs. GLVA member Cindy de Jersey is quoted as saying that 'most licensees are sensible and aware of the law and know what is going on in their premises.' I am sure that this general statement is correct. After all, that is their responsibility in law. However, as in all sections of society, it is the minority who cannot be relied upon to observe the law. In other sectors, where the law is broken, prosecutions follow. In his introduction to the Liquor Licensing (Guernsey) Ordinance 2006 training manual, published by the Home Department, former Home Minister Mike Torode states, 'The department is very clear that it is unacceptable for licensees to fail to comply with their obligations so that intoxicated persons leave pubs and clubs only to cause problems on our streets. 'Drunkenness is the cause of much violent crime and noisy and anti-social behaviour, which is prevalent, particularly at weekends.' He goes on to state, 'licensees have a particular responsibility to prevent persons from becoming drunk on their premises.' The training manual not only illustrates the requirements of the law, but also is uncompromising in its stance over the consequences of non-compliance. Chief Inspector Falla of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Department is quoted as saying that measures are being taken to enforce the law, but that licensees could not be on their premises all the time and that, consequently, it was inevitable the odd person would slip through. Perhaps Mr Falla should remind himself of the contents of the training manual and, in particular, the section that reads, 'With effect from 1 June 2007 all licensees will need to ensure that throughout the permitted hours that their premises is open there is a trained, responsible person on the premises to supervise licensing activities. To undertake this role it is essential that the staff members acting in this capacity have a similar knowledge and understanding of the licensing laws as you (the licensee) do.' The manual continues, 'it is the licensee or designated official who will always be ultimately responsible for the management of his or her premises, regardless of whether or not he or she is physically present when any trouble or problems occur.' Clearly the courts, who deal on a daily basis with the aftermath of alcohol-related issues, are dissatisfied with the conduct of some licensees. Intoxicated individuals do not always recognise their limits and it is the responsibility of licensees to train their staff and manage their business in such a way as to avoid over indulgence, and to make a positive contribution to the reduction of alcohol related crime and anti-social behaviour. It is one thing for the police to work co-operatively with the licensing trade, but until the police and Law Officers of the Crown enforce the liquor licensing laws with any degree of vigour, alcohol related anti-social behaviour and crime will persist. Name and address withheld. | ||
| S. Goubert Guest |
CAN anyone explain the logic re. 'Drank vodka in car, but was not going to drive' (Guernsey Press, Saturday 23 May). In the early 1990s, I knew of a case of someone being found guilty for being drunk-in-charge, and subsequently taken off the roads, for apparently just collecting their coat out of their car in order to walk home (they were saving the cost of the cloakroom ticket). Previously I would have been tempted to do the same with my coat. However, when the case was explained, I could appreciate the logic that you can be drunk in charge of a vehicle, even if you are not driving it, as you could accidentally knock the handbrake and cause damage or injury to someone else. But how come it appears that now it is OK for someone to sit in their car and drink a quarter of a bottle of vodka and yet not be found drunk-in-charge? It seems like a case of double standards to me. Is anyone able to please clarify the law? S. GOUBERT. | ||
| John Hughes Guest |
THE Guernsey Press of 21 May 2009 contained a story about a single mother who had obtained £6,500 in benefits that she was not entitled to. The sentence handed out by assistant-Magistrate Philip Robey was 100 hours of community service. That equates to a rate of £65 per hour. It occurs to me that as a hardworking member of society, who pays their tax and social security, I have chosen completely the wrong career path. Perhaps Mr Robey could let me know if there are jobs going at this 'community service' place? JOHN HUGHES |
