Does Jersey Need A Crown Prosecution Service?

Having look at Jersey justice historically, the major breakdown in the judicial system came during the time of Queen Elizabeth I, when the Island was more or less left to its own devices as a highly radicalised French speaking Protestant (Calvinist society). The realpolitik thinking was that a Calvinist state was a good bulwark against any tendency to look to join Catholic France, and it was better not undermined.

The result was that Jersey (and Guernsey likewise) suffered from a judiciary which cheerfully tortured and burnt people as witches, something which did not happen in England until the breakdown in Circuit Judges riding out occasioned by the Civil War, which left communities in the hands of local magistrates. The position was only rectified in Jersey with the restoration of Charles II, and the dismantling of the Calvinist structures; Charles was not going to let Jersey or Guernsey go their own ways.

One of the ways in which witch hunting never took off before the civil war, except in the Channel Islands and Scotland, was because only in those jurisdictions was a breakdown in the hierarchy of appeal and oversight. To my mind, that's the main requirement of a good judicial system, mechanisms for independent appeals, and oversight. In that respect, it is disappointing that so far nothing has been done in the case of Ian Christmas, who still continues to draw his salary.

But when it works properly, even if Islanders do not like it, it works well - Vernon Tomes is a case in point. Reading the minutes, one of the few occasions outside arriving and leaving the Island when the Lieutenant Governor has spoken in the States, the case against Tomes  - and in favour of justice - "justice delayed is justice denied" being a principle factor there, is clearly seen.

Problems however can arise when there is politicisation of the judiciary, as in the case of the Attorney-General and the run-ins with Lennie Harper. When a senior police officer is prevented from having suspects charged, and there are grounds for believing that political factors are muddying the water, the proper action was for both sides to get together, with someone independent as arbiter to iron out problems, rather than become polarised as appears to have happened. There was a failure of rapprochement on both sides, which did credit to neither. Perhaps Lennie Harper, as a bluff Ulsterman, can be forgiven for being a bit abrasive, but a haughty attitude ill becomes an Attorney-General.

There have been various occasions where either the previous Attorney-General's (William Bailhache's) judgment seems to be lacking in judgement, and certainly in the case of Sir Philip Bailhache (as Attorney-General), he admitted that in hindsight, he did not make the right decisions in the case of Roger Holland, and a public review found this to be the case. But the solution is surely not an independent prosecution services, which could just as easily make errors of judgment, or be subject to political pressure (just read Private Eye for examples!) but better oversight of decisions made. Where decisions would be contentious and political, that was especially important.

But outside of the Historical Abuse enquiry, there seem to be no cases emerging where prosecutions have been called into question or any kind of politicisation of the agenda has taken place. It is interesting that while Stuart Syvret talks of "the crimes of the oligarchs and their vassals have been customarily concealed", outside of the area covered by the Historic Abuse enquiry, and Nurse M, he doesn't cite any cases.

And yet people are tried every week in the Police Court and Magistrates Court. Those are not contentious, unless you are a Cyril Vibert to whom a parking fine is an abuse of law, and must be resisted at all costs. Even the high profile case of Damian Rzeszowski has not elicited cries of conspiracy - despite the strange fact (which I called attention to(that only two jurats were sitting!  Can it be that on the whole, justice proceeds fairly well in Jersey?

On the CPS, The case of the Twitter user shows how the CPS made monumental mistakes, but ones which could be quashed on appeal:
see
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=news&issue=1320

"Private Eye's comment on the saga: Not only has the law been made a laughing stock, Chambers been made unemployed and public money been wasted, but the
law officers' press officers have wasted yet more taxpayers' money spreading confusion. Like Robin Hood Airport, the CPS needs to 'get its shit together'."

And there are other case - Peter Hitchens reports on one: "The CPS will put anyone on trial... except crooks. The main purpose of the Crown Prosecution Service is to save money by pretending that crime and disorder are not as bad as they really are. That is why it is almost impossible to get it to prosecute anyone, unless you have clear, high-definition film of the crime actually being committed. Why on earth did the CPS think  it was worth spending heaps of our money on prosecuting Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury after  a bizarre and faintly comical scuffle in Tesco, in which nobody was hurt? Could it be because her accuser was a Muslim  who alleged she was a 'racist'? But now that a jury has thrown out this ludicrous case after 15 minutes of deliberation (God bless them), will anyone in the CPS be disciplined?"

Clearly, in its desire to assert its independence, the CPS has made some rather bad judgements!