Barking up the Wrong Tree

An interesting extra snippet of information in Sky News:

Mr Harper's leaked memo gives an insight into methods of justice and governance on Jersey. It reveals that the island's Attorney General, William Bailhache, wanted to appoint an independent lawyer to assist the inquiry. Mr Harper quoted Mr Bailhache as saying this was "in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage". Mr Harper wrote: "There was some discussion over his wish to have the lawyer placed within the incident room. I, the Association of Chief Police Officers, and others saw this as a highly unusual step, and objected to that situation." It also reveals that the Attorney General questioned the publicity that the police were giving to the investigation. Mr Harper claims in the memo that Mr Bailhache was of the view that "the circulation list for... police press releases is too wide and encourages wider comment". In response to that concern, Mr Harper wrote: "What would happen if we did indeed cut our circulation list? (The media) would... ask why. "When we gave the truthful answer that the AG thought it a good idea to curtail circulation and a wider coverage they just might, in the light of the many allegations of cover up against his office, think that they had here positive evidence of the 'wilful obstruction' which he was recently accused of. "No matter how unjust that might be, it would be an obvious outcome." Mr Bailhache told Sky News: "I can assure you that I am not going to discuss with the media any memoranda going to and fro with me and the police." He added: "The position is that Jersey has been delivering justice week in, week out for centuries. "There is no reason to think that it will not be delivered in any of the cases that are part of the current investigation."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Jersey-Abuse-Investigation-Obstruction-Claims-In-Leaked-Memo/Article/200808215078407?lpos=UK%2BNews_2&lid=ARTICLE_15078407_Jersey%2BAbuse%2BInvestigation%253A%2BObstruction%2BClaims%2BIn%2BLeaked%2BMemo

Should the Attorney General be effectively directing the course of the enquiry? It seems that the phrase "in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage", which I have not come across in any other media reports on the leaked memo, would indicate precisely that!

It is also interesting to see the comment that about police press releases being "too wide and encourages wider comment". Why should there not be wider comment? I think Lenny Harper's observation that this might just be considered "wilful obstruction" are very sharp and to the point.

Can we really rely on William Baillache's word that "There is no reason to think that it will not be delivered in any of the cases that are part of the current investigation", or if cases come before the jury, will he be issuing notes from the bench ""in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage"? This is a strange notion of justice!

As for the note that "The position is that Jersey has been delivering justice week in, week out for centuries.". I suggest that he decide instead of going by what appears to be received hearsay, look into Jersey history. Here is an interesting example from Ragg's "A Popular History of Jersey", which I think is precisely pertinent to the present situation:

A curious case, too, occurred in the April of 1822, concerning the relationship of Lieut.-Bailiff Sir Thomas Le Breton, to John W. Dupre and J. Poingdestre, two complainants in a trial for forgery held in the Royal Court, which appears to have caused no little stir on the Island, and resulted in an appeal to higher powers, the plea being that the Bailiff, as both brother-in-law and nephew to the persons defrauded, was thereby not a fitting person to act as presiding Magistrate in the case. At least, such was the opinion expressed in Court by a Jurat named Anley, who proposed that the matter should be referred to the whole body of the Court. This was done on April 22nd, 1822, with the result that the full Court decided against the Bailiff. " From which extraordinary decision," says Le Quesne, "John Dumaresq, Procurator General, and Francis John Le Couteur, Advocate-General, appealed ; upon which it pleased His Majesty that the said order of the Royal Court be rescinded and the trial proceed with Sir Thomas Le Breton as presiding Magistrate.

So not much change then about "justice" either! How would Mr Bailhache comment on that case? Does he think the outcome - that Sir Thomas Le Breton should try the case - was just - given the clear conflict of interests? Was this one of those examples of delivering justice "for centuries", or was it more obviously a case where a principles of disinterested jurisprudence were overruled? I feel that if this happened today, the Attorney General would absent himself from the case because of a perceived potential conflict of interests, but in those days, justice - this is the "centuries old justice" - ran on different lines.

How would Mr Bailhache comment on that case? Answers on a postcard to the : The Bailhache Foundation for Historical Ignorance.