The Lunatics have Voted in the Asylum

Just saw this on Channel Television:

Jersey's States have approved the Hopkins Masterplan to develop the Esplanade Quarter. The multi-million pound plan will see the underpass buried, offices and flats built on the site, and three public squares created. It's expected to take between seven and ten years to complete. Members approved the scheme late this afternoon by 40 votes to 6. Earlier in the day critics had tried to stall the plan by asking for a reference back. They wanted more information. But that move was defeated. Detractors fear there'll be traffic chaos for years to come, and the cost of treating the contaminated soil that'll have to be excavated will run into millions of pounds.

A few comments on the proposition.

Dictatorial powers are being used again, to use compulsory purchase if the States don't get their own way.

To approve the acquisition on behalf of the Public of the leasehold interest in an area of land which is held by AXA Sun Life Plc. situated at the rear of the Leisure Centre complex which forms part of the site of the Esplanade Quarter....to agree that, if it is not possible to agree with AXA Sun Life Plc. that it should sell its interest in the land referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above at a fair and proper price, the Minister for Planning and Environment should be empowered in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 to acquire such interest in land and any other interest therein by compulsory purchase on behalf of the Public in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961,

They don't like Guy de Faye giving a blank cheque to developers for digging up property for drainage, but they do approve compulsory purchase for grand "masterplans".

Hopkins Architects Limited is one of the top architectural practices in Europe and has won many international accolades for its pioneering, often complex, high quality projects.

Let us not forget the Hastings Plaza project, where Hopkins were sent back to the drawing board

"We know this site must be developed, but to do so in a way that so blatantly… breaks fundamental urban design best practice, and fails to make even the simplest of contextual references, is not only grossly irresponsible but sets the poorest of precedents for private developers to follow."

"An early design which appeared confident, sensitive and restrained has become crowded as the promise of interesting forms in individual buildings is overwhelmed by the presence of an oversized car park and a reduction of the public space."

It will be interesting to see if the Masterplan fulfils its glossy brochure, or if the design will end up "crowded".

The Masterplan includes high quality office space for Jersey's thriving business community. Office space of the floor plate size and quality envisaged by the Masterplan is currently scarce in the Island despite there being demand for space of this type from a number of the largest financial and professional services operations in Jersey.

There is large office space, recently built (i.e. in the last 10 years) by Green Street Car park which is largely empty. And I am sure there are others. This is special pleading.

During the development there will principally be 2 phases of temporary traffic management. The first phase will cause little or no disruption to the flow of existing traffic and will be in place for approximately 2¼ years. The second phase will be more disruptive but will only be in place for the remaining 9 months of road construction. Whilst the second phase will disrupt road users, it is envisaged that the actual delay to journey times will only be a matter of minutes.

Note this very carefully!!! Although the whole building work will take 7 to 10 years, we are told that there will be no disruption for about 2 years, and then we will only have 9 months disruption. That should take us up to the next election!

The estimated long-term annual cost of maintaining and servicing the tunnel is £500,000 per annum. This cost consists of 2 main elements: (i) the cost of electricity to power lighting and ventilation; and (ii) the cost of maintaining the fabric of the tunnel (including maintenance and replacement of ventilation plant, lighting, signage, cleaning and maintaining the roadway).

Obviously a "green" environmentally friendly solution! At least they are addressing the problem of air quality, but that costs electricity and with rising energy costs, I am not convinced that £500,000 will prove sufficient. No doubt they'll slip the increase by later.

Notice that nothing at all is said about flooding prevention, which I suspect will incur extra costs.

The cost of maintaining the fabric of the tunnel and providing power will be met (as usual) by the Department for Transport and Technical Services. It should be noted that at present the Department has not been allocated a budget from which to fund this ongoing obligation.

That is good planning from the planning department! Well, some of that could always come from school milk being scrapped, and for the rest, let us increase GST?

The Esplanade Quarter is expected to take approximately 7 (not more than 10) years to complete.

I like the "three year" leeway on the timing!

---

A table of the votes is given below.

POUR: 40 CONTRE: 6 ILL: 1 EN DEFAUT: 3 NOT PRESENT: 3
	CONTRE	POUR	MISSING
Senator Stuart Syvret	1
Senator Leonard Norman		1
Senator Frank Harrison Walker		1
Senator Wendy Kinnard		1
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur			1
Senator Paul Francis Routier		1
Senator Michael Edward Vibert		1
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf		1
Senator Terence John Le Main		1
Senator Ben Edward Shenton		1
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen		1
Senator James Leslie Perchard		1
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert		1
Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun		1
Connétable Thomas John du Feu			1
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray		1
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft		1
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan		1
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher		1
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy		1
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson		1
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates		1
Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher		1
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning		1
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel		1
Deputy Alan Breckon	1
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet		1
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.		1
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains	1
Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy		1
Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warren			1
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier		1
Deputy John Benjamin Fox		1
Deputy Judith Ann Martin			1
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern	1
Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson		1
Deputy James Gordon Reed	1
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan			1
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey		1
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré		1
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton		1
Deputy Guy William John de Faye		1
Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire		1
Deputy John Alexandre Nicholas Le Fondré		1
Deputy Deidre Wendy Mezbourian		1
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke		1
Deputy Sean Power		1
Deputy Shona Pitman	1
Deputy Alan John Henry Maclean		1
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis		1
Deputy Andrew David Lewis			1
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst
Deputy Juliette Gallichan		1
	6	40	6

Hopkin's plans slammed
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=3047757

Ozouf Milk Snatcher

For those of us with long memories, you may remember Mrs. Thatcher ending school milk in the UK back in the 1970s for primary schools; it appears from the BBC confidential briefing that the government was desperate for extra funding, and was looking for the easiest cut-backs with the least opposition. It earned Mrs. Thatcher the name "Milk Snatcher".

Now it seems the same is happening over here. In advance of the debate today, the Council of Ministers has released a "comment" designed to sink the proposition to continue school milk.

It notes in part that:

The thrust of the Rural Economy Strategy approved by the States in 2005 is to reduce the level of Government intervention and to ultimately align production with market demand. In the dairy industry it has been possible to reduce the level of subsidy whilst at the same time holding down the wholesale price of milk well below the rate of inflation and this is a trend that we want to continue

This is despite the fact that the dairy industry elsewhere is well-subsidised (e.g. in the UK and Europe) as evidenced by the frequent comparisons made between Jersey and UK prices of milk.

From an economic development perspective, school milk subsidy has to be scored against the many other projects that need funding and which would provide a greater economic return to the Island.

What follows is a masterpiece of sheer obfuscated rhetoric designed to brow-beat and bamboozle the average member of the States:

The Economic Development Department (EDD) undertakes a fundamental review of its expenditure to ensure that it is delivering maximum value from its budget, in accordance with the Public Finances Law. The Department uses a "zero-based" approach that triages statutory, committed and discretionary expenditure. The 2009 budget review assessed all EDD outputs against criteria determined by the Department's key States Strategic Plan objective of realising 2% real annual economic growth. The review concluded that funding school milk had lowest priority of any potential "bid" for funding within these evaluation criteria.

What this means in effect, is that Philip Ozouf is convinced that the imaginary returns from investing in promoting Jersey overseas in China, India and the Far Eastern markets, and other business development proposals are calculated to be better than the real returns from investing in Jersey milk. Of course, to say that would let the cat out of the bag by presenting potential against actual returns, but that is where the money saved is in fact going towards, despite all the attempts to conceal it between the "zero-based" rhetoric. "Triage" basically means diverting money from one area to another.

What is zero-based budgeting? Here is a simple description by Steven J. Anderson (a private practice Certified Public Accountant):

Zero-based budgeting requires that the existence of a government program be justified in each fiscal year, as opposed to simply basing budgeting decisions on a previous year's funding level

However, as has been pointed out by Michael LaFaive:

If those appointed to conduct budget reviews are unwilling to truly assess every item in their budget, word will get out quickly that this new budgeting technique is more symbolism than substance.

This can be seen in the case of Oklahoma, where

Predictably, agencies designed "performance" measures that were at best measures of only inputs and outputs and at worst were a mockery of the concept. Oklahoma's Energy Resources Board, for example, submitted a measure that required the Board to increase the number of positive media stories.

Can you hear "increase the promotion of Jersey as a finance centre in China and the far east" as a performance measure?

In point of fact, in America, States like New Jersey changed to target based budgeting in 1983 because the zero-based approach was too cumbersome.

However, the Council of Ministers goes on to say, on the basis of its rhetorical flourish (do they get Sir Humphrey in to write these speeches?):

School milk funding from the EDD budget will not be available in 2009 and beyond. This is wholly consistent with the Public Finances Law that states that Accounting Officers officer are legally bound to deliver best value from the funding allocated to them. With regard to the Public Finances Law and above prioritisation process, the EDD cannot recommend the continuation of funding for school milk from its budget.

Then they turn their attack on the health benefits:

Turning now to the other perceived benefit – providing nutrition to young children. There is no doubt that the innate qualities of Jersey milk make it richer in nutrients than milk from, say, Holstein Friesian Herds. The real issue is whether there is a nutritional deficiency problem that is so serious that it demands intervention by Government in the form of a blanket provision of additional sustenance for all young children.

and here the Medical Officer of Health comes into play:

The view of the Medical Officer of Health is that increasing levels of obesity mean that the Island could be heading for an abyss of poor health in the future, with today's children having a shorter lifespan than their parents. To avert this crisis, Islanders need to be more physically active and to eat better, lower calorie food. It is her view that there would be much more to be gained by the provision of fruit than by the provision of milk. This would contribute to reducing obesity, improving child health, replacing sugary snacks (thus improving concentration and behaviour in school) and establishing the habit of eating fruit, which would ultimately reduce heart disease and cancer in the adult population.

Perhaps fruit should be subsidized!

In fact, the esteemed Medical Officer of Health is talking through her hat. It is absolutely clear that she has taken no interesting in researching the latest information on the matter, and is simply airing her own prejudices on the matter. Does this seem an unduly harsh comment?

Well, consider this report:

Children should drink milk to help prevent osteoporosis - 26.05.2008

For generations children have been urged to drink milk for strong. healthy bones and teeth. New research from Southampton, UK, announced today (26 May) is taking this a step further, showing the link between drinking mild and reducing the risk of osteoporosis in later life.

and this is no small study but a major investigation over time:

Dr Nick Harvey from the MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre and University of Southampton, told delegates at the 35th European Symposium on Calcified Tissues in Barcelona that patterns of bone growth in the first few years of life can strongly influence the onset of osteoporosis decades later.

The study, part of a larger programme of research into the early life origins of osteoporosis under the leadership of Professor Cyrus Cooper, involved more than 12,500 non-pregnant women aged 20-34, recruited between 1998 and 2002 into the Southampton Women's Survey. The women underwent comprehensive assessment of diet, lifestyle and body measurements before, and for those who conceived (now around 3000 women), during pregnancy.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1095121.stm

Thatcher Milk Snatcher

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=5928

Zero_based Budgeting

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3381021

Target-Based Budgeting and Adaptations to Fiscal Uncertainty

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht-110770.html

Latest research on Milk

The Intrusive Nature of a Jersey Guy

'The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common;
But lets the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.'

The anonymous poet was referring to the effects of the Enclosures - literally the fencing in of land to stop others from using it.

Before about 1740, most villages were enclosed by agreement. The main owners of the land made a private agreement to join their strips of land together. But this sometimes met with the opposition of a number of smaller landowners, so the larger landowners lobbied Parliament and got - in the 18th and 19th centuries in particular - Enclosure Acts passed. This meant they no longer had to obtain consent of the other landowners, but could go ahead with enclosures regardless.

Christopher Draper, author of "Llandudno Before the Hotels", tells of how Llandudno's 1843 Enclosure Act "was progressed through Parliament by Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn M.P. whose family consequently acquired freehold rights over much of the old village of Llandudno. Smallholders were then evicted, their fields paved over and an ancient agricultural settlement transformed into a fashionable bathing resort. A century and a half later Mostyn Estates still own and control most of our town."

Enclosure Acts were was essentially a legal trump card which worked solely in favour of and for the benefit of the larger landowner. Nowadays, it would be the property developer!

Indeed, it is this kind of "legal trump card" which has been promoted by Guy de Faye, against the advice of his own officers, in what could be described as an "Intrusion Act". Under this ministerial fiat, if a landowner/property developer wanted to get water pipes, drainage etc through for utilities, and that meant going through other people's land, they could cheerfully ignore any requirements of consensus, and dig their way through their neighbours gardens.

Fortunately, the States have shown wisdom and rejected this, but it is unlikely to curb Guy de Faye's ability to make future sloppy decisions. So far, we have had:

a) a bus station, closed in the cold, wet, windy winter evenings, and opened in the nice warm summer months
b) massive motor-way height curbs at the end of Victoria Avenue (instead of the lower Guernsey ones which would have been the sensible option, and would have allowed drivers to move aside for ambulances)
c) Plans to phase out free bus passes
d) Rejection on plans for rear-seat belts
e) Rejection of plans to sort out St Brelade's beach (later rescinded after he had shot his mouth off)

and now this!

In the 2005 hustings, Deputy de Faye reflected on the apparently scant rewards of being a States member, suggesting to the audience that being branded "incompetent" came with the territory.

Maybe he should reflect on that....

Housing and Victorian Values

"Jersey is a low tax area and a good place to live and bring up children" (Robin Trower)

This was a quotation from the JEP about property prices from the estate agent, not as far as I know, to be confused with the influential blues and rock guitarist.

Although singing the blues would probably be apposite for the people suck in poverty, unable to ever get off the rental market and into the vastly overpriced property market.

It is precisely because Jersey is a low tax area that it has attracted the offshore finance industry, and this has effectively priced most people out of the property market, and sent rental prices sky high.

According to the local estate agent, Jersey should be largely immune to the sub-prime mortgage problems as far as its housing market goes, although it will be interesting to see if global cut-backs on lending and interest rate rises will also come over here as banks change their policies worldwide. It seems likely that while house prices will not fall (the demand push is too great), it may be more difficult to get loans available, and at the cheap interest rates hitherto enjoyed.

I wonder if Terry Le Main could also learn from Nye Bevan. As Timmins notes:

Bevan's policy was to restrict severely private housebuilding, allowing only one private house for every four built by local authorities, to order local authorities to requisition empty houses.

That would certainly ruffle a few feathers! Especially the ratio!

I know that in the mid-1980s, a friend of mine, Ken Webb was a census enumerator, and he noticed with some dismay the large number of houses deliberately left empty rather than reduce asking rents. I don't know if that is still the case - somehow those figures never appear in the official compiled statistics, but it would be interesting to know.

Sometimes I wonder how far Jersey has come. Look at this speech:


It is not the housing of the poor, but the housing of the people by the people themselves, that we must work for - not the herding into slums for the benefit of private enterprise, not the crowding into barracks in order to provide interest for municipal bondholders, but by a feasible honest system and plan.


This could apply today, for as Nicholas France (the Catholic Dean) has noted, the Housing committee just doesn't want to know when it comes to clamping down on slum properties - and yes, there are plenty over here, with poorer people crammed into one or two rooms, and mould taking residence on the walls.

In fact it was written by Fred Knee secretary of the Workers National Housing Council in the 1890s. We still have a long way to go to catch up with the these Victorian values in the 21st century!

References:

Nicholas Timmins 'The Five Giants - A biography of the Welfare State' Fontana 1996
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/GraysonHistory.doc

The Samurai Planning Officer

I see that Freddie Cohen has promised to "fall on his sword", metaphorically and resign if he does not get his own way over the Waterfront development plans. As the Waterfront would probably move Jersey towards a kind of mini-Tokyo, this kind of Samurai strategy probably makes sense.

Is it my imagination, but doesn't this sound like a sort of blackmail, and the kind of "it's not fair" that one gets from a petulant child used to getting his own way?

He says of course that he is following his manifesto in bringing the Waterfront development forwards. As (1) the plan did not exist at the time and (2) more to the point, it was only after election that he became head of Planning - this seems strange. In point of fact, nothing like sunken roads and winter gardens (with artificial light to make those artistically placed trees in the artistic impression in tonight's JEP - another environmentally friendly matter?) was ever mentioned in that manifesto. This is another red herring. I suggest he reads his manifesto again.

It reads:

"The town centre must be protected and we must be watchful of proposals for the Waterfront that threaten to shift too much of the vibrancy from the existing centre."

The Election Publicity Tram

The recent JEP headline said: "Tram for the Waterfront?"

According to the writers, Harry McRandle and Ben Quéré, Jersey could again have a railway running from the west to town.

"Representatives of a leading transport company are visiting the Island this week to talk to politicians about the feasibility of creating a light railway or tram system. Experts from Transdev were invited to the Island by the Environment Scrutiny panel and will meet representatives of the Transport and Technical Services department and the Environment department. The visit comes at the instigation of Scrutiny panel member Deputy Paul Le Claire. The Deputy said: 'I have always thought there was room for a light railway or tram system. I put the idea to the panel and they asked me to look into options.' He said that he had spoken to a number of expert businesses and the visit of Transdev on Thursday was the first tangible step into assessing feasibility and potential costs."

This seems extraordinary. Where are they going to fit it on the stretch between Bel Royal and Beaumont?

And is it advisable to involve Transport and Technical Services, aka, the Ministry of Cock-ups?

Call me cynical, but I think if I had a "caption competition" to put words into the Deputy's mouth, it would be "I have always thought there was room for an attention grabbing, headline making bit of publicity when elections are due in October".

Stultus quoque, si tacuerit, sapiens reputabitur, et si compresserit labia sua, intelligens

The Telegraph mentioned that Jack Straw had been asked to look into the investigation at Haut de La Garenne. The Bailiff and Frank Walker again came out of the story rather the worst for wear.
The Telegraph commented:

Since the investigation into alleged abuse at the Haut de la Garenne former children's home began, some of Jersey's ministers have criticised and even ridiculed the police inquiry.

It then goes on with the next paragraphs in such a manner that even the dimmest reader can see who is meant. The Bailiff gets criticism for his incredibly foolish remark suggesting that media coverage was the true problem rather than - quoting him - the "so called child abuse scandal".

The Bailiff of Jersey, who is both the speaker in the island's parliament and the head of the judiciary, used a speech last month to claim that the true problem in Jersey was the media's coverage of the 'so-called child abuse scandal'.

And dear old Frank gets a revisit of the old "shaft" quotation.

The island's Chief Minister, Frank Walker, has accused Mr Syvret of trying to 'shaft Jersey internationally' by drawing attention to the problem.

The book of Proverbs, which such god-fearing folk as the aforementioned might read from time to time says:

"The fool likewise, if he keeps quiet, will be thought a wise man, and if he would keep his mouth shut, he will be thought to be intelligent."

This is often incorrectly, but rather aptly (especially here) translated as:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2066149/Jersey-abuse-case-Jack-Straw-urged-to-step-in.html?service=print

The Law is Crap(aud)

William Bailhache, QC, the Attorney-General also said that if a police enquiry into alleged abuse at a former children's home on the island led to lengthy trials, an outside judge was likely to be brought in to handle them....He said the allegations of abuse at the children's home should be handled largely by Jersey's legal system, but added that if several defendants were involved who pleaded not guilty, a judge from outside the island was likely to be brought in. "I don't think there's any doubt that justice can be done," he told the newspaper. "The Jersey Royal Court is very well respected. When any community, wherever it is, has this sort of problem, the community must deal with it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2064076/Jersey-abuse-case-Thousands-to-be-added-to-sex-offenders-register.html?service=print

I love the way in which we are told contradictory things.

First, Jersey can handle its own cases and does not need outside help.

Then the Attorney General says that they may bring in judges from outside, and notes (in another version of this interview) that can be standard practice for long drawn out and involved cases.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!


Of course it is and always has been the case, as the Edward's report notes:

The Bailiff may appoint persons from outside the Island, mainly QC's from the United Kingdom, as Commissioners to hear particular cases when pressure of business or conflicts of interest require.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!!

A difference that makes such a difference makes all the difference, to paraphrase Spock.

But that doesn't mean the Island courts can't handle matters on their own!!!!!

And on a lighter note, but still of interest, a few extracts from Matthew Jowitt's law review from 2003:

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/Oct03/JLR0310_Postscript.aspx

To an English lawyer wearied by Government performance targets and fatuous attempts to apply the 'user friendly' culture of fast-food restaurants to a criminal justice system, Jersey's dignified adherence to its legal past is refreshing, if not a little off-putting at times.The most immediate aspect, because the most obvious, is the Island's apparent love for arcane titles. In England we used to have all manner of exotic legal creatures: stipendiaries, serjeants, assistant recorders, Lord Chancellors - even silks. All sadly extinct, or about to become so. In our brave new legal world the colour of history and tradition is being bleached away. Titles now are prosaic: district judge, list officer, minister of justice - like quick-dry paint, they do exactly what it says on the tin.

For some time I thought 'Judicial Greffe' was pronounced 'judicial grief' - and assumed that must be what advocates received in the Court of Appeal. I suspected that a 'Bâtonnier' was a type of French gateau, probably with marzipan. Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Lieutenant Bailiff, Acting Deputy Lieutenant Bailiff (second class) - what is the newly-arrived Englishman to make of this? When I first heard a lawyer talking about 'the Jurats' I assumed he meant an island chain somewhere off the coast of Norway.

But the differences between our two criminal legal systems are more than skin-deep, no matter how familiar much of Jersey criminal law and practice is to the English barrister. In the Island I am repeatedly struck by how involved the prosecution are with matters which, in England, the prosecution not only do not trespass upon, but it is felt should have nothing to do with as a matter of sacrosanct principle.

In Lincoln Crown Court you would not only never hear a prosecutor giving the judge his opinion on what the sentence should be. If he were to do so the judge would come down on him like a ton of bricks. An English judge may well ask a prosecutor what his sentencing powers are as a matter of law, but anything more than that and defence counsel - rightly - would be jumping to his feet to object. In England it is considered somehow unseemly for the Crown to be seen demanding its pound of flesh.

In Jersey things are very different. A Crown Advocate is required, through his submissions, to recommend to the Court a particular conclusion, and give relevant indications from case law about sentencing practice and tariffs. Custody thresholds and starting points are debated at length.

In England it is accepted without being said that the tribunal which sentences an offender should be the tribunal which tried him. There are good reasons for that: the trial judge will have heard the evidence, assessed each and every witness, formed a view as to where the truth lies, or whether certain aggravating features, notwithstanding a guilty verdict, were sufficiently proved to be reflected in sentence. Chiefly, the trial judge will have been able to assess the defendant himself, if he gave evidence, (and in England the fact that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendant's failure to give evidence means that most do). I have often heard a sentencing judge express his opinion as to a defendant's character on the strength of his earlier performance in the witness box. Any English judge asked to sentence a man following his trial before another judge would - unless that judge were seriously ill or dead - decline to deal with it, and send it back to the trial judge.

In Jersey it is difficult for the English barrister to see the point of Inferior and Superior numbers. One manifestation of the Royal Court, with the power to sentence to any length of imprisonment, ought to suffice as it does in the English Crown Court. One manifestation of the Royal Court both to try and sentence the same defendant would be a simpler, more elegant solution than that which pertains as present.

It may be that I have missed point, but it does strike me that this procedural complexity is exacerbated by Jersey's peculiar dual system of trial by judge and jury for customary law offences, and trial by judge and jurats for statutory offences.

It is a system which has the potential too for wide-reaching constitutional problems. English common law offences grow few and far between: violence, dishonesty, drugs and sex are all now, for the most part, codified in statute. Statutes have a distinct advantage over customary law: subject to construction, and some interpretative case law, their meaning is clear and fixed. To an English lawyer, Jersey's customary law is a particular headache - varied in origin, not always clear in substance. The molly-coddled London counsel, used to turning up statute to discover what an offence involves, can be tempted to conclude that Jersey customary law is no move than a misnomer for a piecemeal assortment of ad hoc decisions by different people at different times over a course of ages.

In this new age of human rights law the principle that law should be clear, consistent and unambiguous grows more important that ever. The law should say what it means, and mean what it says. Similarly, defence lawyers will grow ever more astute to argue against changes which detract from those rights - chief amongst them, perhaps, the hallowed right to jury trial. Here lies the seed of conflict: on the one hand the potential need to clarify customary law through codification, on the other the erosion of trial by jury which such a course would entail. Short of abolishing the dual system of juries and jurats, it is not immediately obvious how such problems would resolve themselves.

Exeter Bombing

Just caught sight of this on the news (see below). I've always regarded Exeter as a kind of home from home, a place where I had been for 4 years, and returned on holidays on numerous occasions. To find a bomb has been set off by a "radicalised" Islamic convert in Exeter, of all places, a sleepy rural city far away from places with large immigrant populations is very disconcerting.

I do not believe that Islam is necessarily a religion of violence, but in its 21st century manifestations, it needs strong "moderate" leaders to take control of the movement and make it clear that terrorist attacks and threats of violence on innocent people are more likely to send someone to hell (if that exists) rather than paradise. There is speaking out, but it is always "firefighting", speaking out after attempted or successful attacks have been made.

BBC News:

Friday, 23 May 2008 15:25 UK

Exeter bomb loaded with chemicals

A bomb which exploded in Exeter was a mix of chemicals and nails, senior police sources have said.

Police are waiting to question Nicky Reilly, 22, who is under guard being treated for severe facial lacerations following Thursday's explosion.

They are said to have CCTV film showing the suspect boarding a bus from his Plymouth home carrying a rucksack.

A bomb disposal team arrived at Mr Reilly's home in the Stonehouse area of Plymouth at lunchtime on Friday.

In the hours following the explosion Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said police believed Mr Reilly had adopted the Islamic faith and had been "preyed upon" and "radicalised".

Police said Mr Reilly boarded a double-decker Stagecoach bus number X38 in Bretonside bus station, Plymouth, and have appealed to passengers on the service to contact them.

He was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville

"We know that between 1026 and 1040 yesterday morning 54 other passengers boarded the same bus and travelled to the main bus station in Paris Street, Exeter, arriving just after midday," a spokesman said.

The bus made two scheduled stops at a garden centre on the A38 and at Ashburton en route to Exeter.

Mr Reilly is described as white, 6ft 1in with short dark hair. He is heavily built, weighing approximately 18st (114kg). He was wearing blue jeans and a blue polo shirt with horizontal red and white stripes.

Neighbours of Mr Reilly have told BBC News he converted to Islam changed his name to Mohammed Rasheed.

A team of about 20 specialists from Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism branch SO15, has been brought in to help Devon and Cornwall Police with the investigation.

It includes forensic officers, intelligence experts and detectives.

After the arrest, police evacuated properties 40 miles away in the Stonehouse area of Plymouth.

Mr Reilly, who police have said has a history of mental illness, was injured when a device detonated in the Giraffe restaurant at Princesshay shopping centre in Exeter at 1250 BST.

Detectives said he suffered serious, but not life-threatening, injuries, and was unlikely to be well enough to be properly questioned until next week.

No-one else was hurt in the explosion at the restaurant, which was busy at the time and is popular with families.

Another device was found outside the premises and was made safe by bomb disposal experts.

The explosion led to an evacuation of nearby buildings and the city's bus station about half a mile away.

People were allowed to return at about 1900 BST.

'Big friendly giant'

In a statement, Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said: "Our investigation so far indicates Reilly, who had a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith.

"We believe, despite his weak and vulnerable illness, he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of."

Syed Rahman, chairman of a Plymouth Islamic centre where Reilly once worshipped, told BBC News that those with a fundamentalist agenda were not welcome.

He said: "We do not have and have never supported or condoned any radical or extremist behaviour.

"This Islamic centre is only used for communal prayers."