Jersey Unreported Judgments

Appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 2nd November, 2011.

[2011]JRC215

Royal Court

(Samedi)

7 November 2011

Stuart Syvret

-v-

AG

Appeal to the Inferior Number of the Royal Court against the sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 2^nd November, 2011, following breach of Community Service Order on the following charges:

The Appellant represented himself.

Crown Advocate S. M. Baker for the Attorney General.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        This is an appeal against sentence by Mr Stuart Syvret following the revocation of the Community Service Order that was imposed by this court on his appeal against conviction and the sentence of 8 weeks' imprisonment was substituted for the Community Service Order. 

2.        I deal with two preliminary matters.  On his notice of appeal against sentence Mr Syvret also indicated that he wanted to apply for habeas corpus.  We have not heard that application, I have not heard full argument about it but I very much doubt whether such a remedy would be available in these situations.  It is designed as a remedy for those very rare occasions when somebody detained in custody has no remedy, no way of getting before the court.  Here he has his way of getting before the court which is the appeal against sentence which he has pursued today. 

3.        Mr Syvret also renews applications which he has made both in the court below and before this Court, firstly that the Magistrate should have recused herself and secondly, that I should recuse myself.  So far as the application that she should have recused herself, everything leading up to the first hearing was dealt with in the course of argument in the appeal and I gave a judgment rejecting that argument.  Nothing that Mr Syvret has sought to raise today is new material, and I see no reason to alter the ruling in respect of that.  Similarly, in respect of his application that I should recuse myself; that he also raised in the course of the proceedings, that I also gave a ruling on and again, nothing has changed.  As I have endeavoured to point out to Mr Syvret, the fact that a judge finds against you is not an indication of bias so as to make it necessary for that judge to recuse him or herself. 

4.        Turning then to what this appeal is about, namely his appeal against sentence.  It is important, in our judgment, to set out in more detail than would normally be necessary, exactly what the history of this is.  Mr Syvret on occasions complains that he is misrepresented in the mainstream media, and the facts of his case are misrepresented.  So also others, from time to time, suggest that he himself misrepresents, whether electronically or otherwise, precisely what has happened in Court.  So it is important that there should be a factual setting out of what has gone on so that those who wish to know may see what actually the case is about and what has happened.  It is important to say what this is not about.  It is not about the data protection offences; it is not about any raid on his partner's home; it is not about the Haut de la Garenne child abuse or child abuse in any other institution in this Island.  The sole issue is whether the sentence of imprisonment following the revocation of the Community Service Order for failing to attend court during the Magistrate's Court proceedings was the appropriate penalty or not.

5.        What happened was this.  During the course of a lengthy hearing in the Magistrate's Court spread over many days separated, inevitably, by weeks on occasions, Mr Syvret after one hearing, left the jurisdiction, went to the United Kingdom, and remained there for six months, not returning to continue what should have been the hearing of the case against him.  It should come as a surprise to no-one that every defendant, guilty or innocent, has an obligation to attend court when summoned to do so and to answer to his or her bail.  A moment's reflection will show that the criminal justice system would break down completely were there not such an obligation.  Failing to do so is a contempt of court in Jersey and it is punishable with imprisonment in appropriate cases. 

6.        In the present case, as I have indicated, the appellant left the country and failed to return to attend for the rest of his trial.  He has never put forward anything that, in the judgement of this Court, would amount to a valid excuse for doing so.  He claims today that his reason for going was to seek different legal advice.  It is important to emphasise again as I have done in previous rulings, that so far as legal representation was concerned, Mr Syvret was treated exactly as any other citizen of this Island.  He was offered in fact a very experienced criminal advocate, at public expense, in the sense that the advocate would not be paid but would do it pro bono as part of the normal advocate's obligation to assist those who cannot afford to have other representation of their own.  He was treated exactly the same and it was not in any way necessary for him to go to London in order to seek further representation.  How in any event that could have taken six months is not clear. 

7.        Secondly, Mr Syvret claims that he was in some way helping his constituents, as they then still were, because he was then a serving member of the States, by leaving the jurisdiction and publicising their grievances.  Again that is not in itself a valid reason; it is hard to see how he could help them more by leaving the jurisdiction than he could have done by staying here and working through the normal channels.  He had no defence to this charge; the Magistrate found him guilty in the court below; she did not then want to send him to prison; she offered him community service as an alternative, he refused and she therefore imposed a short prison sentence. 

8.        He commenced his appeal against conviction and was bailed very quickly pending that appeal.  The appeal was heard in due course and dismissed by the Royal Court, constituted on that occasion in exactly the same way as it is today.  Again he was offered community service and this time, he accepted it so the penalty imposed, which is the one that the Magistrate had wanted to impose in the first place, was 80 hours' community service for his failure to attend in answer to his bail.  Despite having agreed to do community service, the appellant has not done one hour of it.  It has to be said that he treated the order with contempt.  Unfortunately also he treated those who are simply doing their job of trying to carry out the order of the Court, performing an important public service by providing a constructive alternative to imprisonment, with contempt.  When he arrived late for his appointment the community service officer decided to interview him and this is what happened, from the report of Mr Le Marrec:-

"I explained the purpose of the interview and format which would follow.  Mr Syvret responded by saying ' you don't really expect me to take this seriously'". 

And that was his attitude thereafter.  Not surprisingly Mr Le Marrec and the court below formed the conclusion that Mr Syvret did not intend to do the order and therefore it was not any longer workable. 

9.        The work that he would have been required to do was, one might have thought, hardly arduous for somebody who was not in employment.  It was a few hours of light work sweeping leaves.  Mr Syvret at one stage produced a doctor's certificate saying he was unfit for work but he was certainly fit enough to conduct his senatorial campaign and attend hustings during that time, and in our judgement the Magistrate quite rightly concluded that he was fit enough to do the light work that the order would have required, a few hours per week.  It is clear from all of that that Mr Syvret could perfectly well have done the work, had he chosen to do so, he clearly did not intend to do it; the Magistrate had no alternative but to treat the order as unworkable, therefore finding an alternative penalty to it.  As had been made clear when she found an alternative on the previous occasion, the alternative was a short prison sentence, and that is the sentence she imposed.  In our judgment she had no option but to do that.  Mr Syvret through his own actions has brought himself to this position and this appeal is dismissed. 

No Authorities