The 3 Written Questions all lodged by Deputy Higgins are below along with the answers. The first about the Crown Officer’s accountability is one which has been raised in many of my Blogs. Whilst the AG has stated that the question was unclear as to what is meant by “complaint” I believe he has given a clear answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER
Question
(a) Will H.M. Attorney General set out clearly each of the steps that need to be taken by anyone wishing to make a complaint (including misconduct) against the actions of any of the following office holders, explaining in detail each step and each level, until the matter reaches the persons or bodies ultimately responsible for determining such matters:
(i) Legally qualified members of the Law Officers Department;
(ii) Solicitor General;
(iii) Attorney General;
(iv) Deputy Bailiff;
(v) Bailiff;
(vi) Jurats;
(vii) Magistrates?
(b) To whom are the office holders (i) to (vii) listed above accountable for appraisal purposes?
Answer
a) The question is not clear as to what is meant by “complaint”, particularly in respect of the officer holders who are listed at (iv) to (vii) whose functions require them to act as judges in the Jersey courts. It is important to distinguish between two types of complaint in relation to a judge.
In so far as the complaint relates to matters occurring in the course of legal proceedings (for example, a complaint that the judge’s decision is wrong or that he or she has behaved unfairly or should not have sat because he or she had a conflict of interest) then the appropriate remedy is for the aggrieved party to use the judicial process and appeal or apply for doléance (an alternative method of review) where available.
Where the complaint alleges misconduct other than in the course of legal proceedings, then the appropriate course in respect of a complaint made against a Jurat or a Magistrate is to lodge that complaint with the Bailiff. The Bailiff can then decide if the complaint requires investigation. If it does, he will seek to replicate the procedures applied in England and Wales as far as possible and, where appropriate, will appoint an independent person to investigate the matter.
The process thereafter in respect of a Jurat is set out in the Royal Court (Jersey) Law 1948.
The Bailiff can convene the Superior Number at the conclusion of any investigation so that the Royal Court can consider whether or not to petition the Privy Council seeking the removal of the Jurat (if no resignation is forthcoming) by Order in Council.
A Magistrate may only dismissed by Order in Council. Should the independent investigation merit such a course of action, the Bailiff would make a recommendation accordingly.
The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff are appointed by Her Majesty and may only be dismissed by Her Majesty.
If a complaint of misconduct outside court proceedings concerns the Bailiff or the Deputy Bailiff then the complaint should be lodged with the Lieutenant Governor as Her Majesty’s personal representative. If he decides that the complaint requires investigation, he may appoint an independent person to investigate in the same manner as described above. Should the result of the investigation merit such a course of action, a recommendation can then be made to Her Majesty.
The Attorney General and the Solicitor General are appointed by Her Majesty and may only be dismissed be Her Majesty. The procedure for a complaint against either of them would be analogous to that in respect of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff.
The Law Officers’ Department has its own internal disciplinary procedures and any complaint about a legally qualified member of staff should be made to the Attorney General in the first instance.
The procedures described above are designed to provide for effective investigation when merited but at the same time preserve the independence of the office holders as the independence of the judiciary and the prosecuting authorities is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law.
b) The management at the Law Officers Department conducts appraisals of legally qualified members of staff. The Law Officers and members of the Judiciary are not the subject of appraisals. The members of the Judiciary receive training on a regular basis. The Court’s judgements are subject to public scrutiny and litigants are able to exercise any rights of appeal.
****************************************************************************
I only heard a few of the Oral Questions this morning but I heard Senator Le Marquand the Home Affairs Minister complaining that the questions about the Discipline Hearing were “outrageous.” In his answer below he says he “strongly deplores the decision of the disciplinary tribunal being used in this way.” The Minister is entitled to that view but there are members of the public who are outraged and strongly deplore the spending of hundreds and thousands of pounds and thousands of police hours on pointless investigations and discipline hearings. Someone must be accountable, if it is not the Chief Police Officer or the Home Affair’s Minister, who is?
The criticism of the unsigned statements came from Chief Constable Barton; responsibility for the evidence being used by the prosecution was not that of Hants Police but the Jersey Police. The unsigned statements were not the only things that troubled the Chief Constable and clearly he chose to express his displeasure.
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER
Question
Following the unauthorised publication of the judgement of the disciplinary hearing against 3 police officers will the Minister -
a) explain why the signed statements of the three police officers who faced a disciplinary hearing over the bugging of the hire car of one of the defendants in the Curtis Warren case were not made available at the disciplinary hearing which resulted in unsigned statements transposed onto Hampshire Police paper being introduced instead;
b) state whether or not the evidence in the unsigned statements was disputed by any of parties to the hearing and, if so, the nature of the disputed evidence?
Answer,
I strongly deplore the decision of the disciplinary tribunal being used in this way. Not only was the hearing by law held in private, but also, the presiding Chief Officer expressly stated in his verbal decision that he did not expect to see his comments in the media and that he did not authorise the use of his comments other than for this hearing; and, in his written decision that he did not authorise the publication of his written judgement other than for the purposes of this hearing.
Although I was initially minded to continue to decline to answer questions on the written decision, the outrageous nature of some of the questions posed to me which imply serious misconduct on the part of senior police officers has forced me into clarifying the position by answering a number of procedural questions.
(a) The Hampshire Police loaded the relevant statements into the HOLMES computer system as part of the investigation. Unfortunately, it was the printout of the statements which were presented as part of the agreed and disclosed bundles to the presiding Chief Officer and not the original statements. I am informed that the original signed statements were available at the hearing but the presiding Chief Officer did not refer to them.
(b) It would appear that one officer raised a question as to whether the HOLMES version of his statement was accurate.
*******************************************************************************
With reference to the question below, I agree with Senator Le Marquand that police officers must expect to be the subject of complaints, indeed to could be considered an occupational hazard particularly for those exposed to the sharp end of policing. However where this complaint differs from about 99% of all complaints is that it was instigated by the Chief Police Officer and supported by the Minister.
It has been reported that the 3 officers feel betrayed and one can understand their reaction when one reads the Discipline Judgement and sees that Hants Police were obstructed from completing their investigations by both the Police and Law Officers. We now hear that it was Hants Police who recommended disciplinary action how can that be if it did not have all the facts?
The decision to proceed with the disciplinary action rests squarely on the shoulders of the Deputy Police Chief who like the former Deputy Police Chief; Lenny Harper is responsible for discipline. It is evident that he got it wrong and it must have and I am told has left a bad taste and sadly a loss of respect for the senior management.
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIR'S By DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER
Question
Will the Minister explain how, following the recent disciplinary hearing which led to the exoneration of the three police officers involved in the Curtis Warren car bugging case -
(a) the police officers will be able to work closely and harmoniously with the senior officers who brought the disciplinary charges against them;(b) how a trusting relationship between the police and the Law Officers’ Department will be restored; and,
(c) what the effects were of the illegal bugging in France, Belgium and Holland on the relations between those countries and Jersey and what steps have been taken to restore the trust and confidence of those authorities in the Jersey police and Law Officers’ Department?
Answer
(a) Disciplinary charges were brought following the recommendation of the investigating police force. Police officers are well aware that they will be subject from time to time to complaints and may be subject to a disciplinary hearing. The position in relation to disciplinary hearings is similar to that for a civil servant or other public employee. There should be no reason why a police officer who has been exonerated or made subject to a disciplinary sanction short of dismissal, and who remains able and fit for work, should not be able to return to normal duties.
(b) A strong professional relationship exists between the States of Jersey Police and the Law Officers’ Department and has not been harmed in any way by this action.
(c) There has been no detrimental effect to continued international relations with enforcement agencies. Requests for international assistance are undertaken in accordance with the law through appropriate letters of request and close scrutiny by the police and legal authorities.
Were we not led to believe that magistrate christmas was appointed by the Queen and therefore could not be dismissed sooner?
ReplyDeleteYes, the Magistrate was suspended for about 4 years and the system apparently does not allow to dismiss him until the case had been completed.
DeleteHi Bob.
ReplyDeleteJust put up the Audio from today's States sitting, Hope this helps your investigation's. You & your Readers can listen HERE
TJW.
Thank you, I am sure readers will find your link very informative.
DeleteThe above answers only proves we do need an independent Justice system! The Bailiff was approached on a case where a Judge had a huge conflict of interest and I mean huge!, The Bailiff and I hope he is reading this blog, did absolutely nothing to sort it out! Mr Birt you know who we are talking about! so come on explain your actions in this matter.... No I am afraid the Bailiff is not the person to go to if you have an issue of conflict with a Judge, so it's back to square one on that point! I am afraid....but onwards we must go...thank you to those Politicians who are brave to ask the very questions the others won't ask, I know who I am voting for! great work Bob...so it's back to the UK Ministry of Justice and we keep on pushing for a fairer system!
ReplyDeleteI agree, I did lodge a proposition a few years ago for a Human Rights Audit of our Justice system, but my attempt did not not receive sufficient support.
DeleteWe seem to have a blind spot in Jersey when it comes to conflicts.
Bob, it is interesting to know that the Queen can dismiss the Bailiff and the Deputy Bailiff. So she has the responsibility to hire and to fire...
ReplyDeleteDeputy Higgins' question regarding accountability has been very helpful.
DeleteI am very proud of the Politicians who are brave enough to ask the questions in Jersey that will show change, we need to ensure we keep asking the questions, no matter how upset it makes Mr Le Marquand! !
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately there are too few Members who are prepared to ask questions. I don’t think that anyone sets out to upset Senator Le Marquand, Members are only doing the job they were elected to do.
DeleteThis case is becoming very similar to the Graham Power saga where those responsible for the suspension were determined that the truth would never be revealed or those responsible taken to account.
Dear Bob, can I confirm from a recording i have just heard that Crown Officer Matthew Jowitt is no longer working in the same capacity as he did during the Curtis Warren fiasco! do we know where he is working now?
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that the Advocate has "moved on" but I don't know why.
DeleteMr Hill, when you say "moved on"...are you saying the Advocate has left the island?
DeleteI don't know, perhaps some one will come up up with the answer.
DeleteHaving just heard the recordings I must say, Politics in the Island of Jersey is getting very interesting. I am most impressed by a Mr Higgins, speaks clearly and gets his points across extremely well. There are a group of Politicians Tadier, Pitman to name the ones I have heard on the radio. I am not sure of Mr Le Marquand, his answers are not very clear. But Politics in Jersey is certainly getting better. I have to say I was extremely surprised to learn that a Bailiff is not elected sitting in an elected Chamber, I am very interested to know how that works. from Laura in Eire. PS: keep up the good work. PPS: I was in Dublin this evening and to hear my Irish Taiosache apologise to the people who suffered in the Magdelene Laundries was very refreshing. A man who holds emotion and integrity, such an important character to have in Politics. I hope Jersey can do the same. I think Jersey has the ability if it keeps up the good work of asking questions and wanting to find out the truth.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interest. Politicians the world over are not very good at apologising or comfortable when defending “cock ups.” At the next States Sitting we should be discussing the establishment of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and agreeing its Terms of Reference. It will be interesting to see how much support there will be for the proposition and the amendments.
DeleteThe Taoiseach thought it could hide forever, but has learnt that it could not. Who knows what Jersey has learnt?
It will be interesting to see if Lyndon Farnham gets his extra box needed for the Electorial vote, it is a good idea, that there is a box to say 'no'. This would send out a real choice for Voters.... On this occasion I must say I am impressed with Mr Farnham.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid that Senator Farnham’s amendment like all the other amendments was not approved. The Electoral Commission was doomed to failure once the States did a u turn by allowing it to include 3 States Members.
DeleteAgain there was a failure to understand what conflict means.
On a separate note, I am very proud of the Politicians that ask questions, gone are the days when one or two would speak and the others would just follow like sheep, change won't happen overnight, but it is happening.......it's a start....
ReplyDeleteStill too many sheep.
DeleteOne only needs to look to the actions of police in the Hillsborough disaster.
ReplyDeleteLook at what was disclosed when Andy Burnham called for Police and other public agencies to release documents that had not been previously available to Lord Justice Taylor.
Nothing is solved by secrecy.
I agree, but look at how long it took to get the Hillsborough papers, regretfully Jersey is not alone with its secrecy culture.
DeleteJersey certainly is not alone in its culture of secrecy, but it is slow to accept that it can have no expectation of protection from outside eyes looking in. Jersey was astonished and dismayed by the publicity at HDLG, and does not accept the routine outside criticism the rest of the western world tolerates daily. The world has been made so small now and immediate today that any expectation of information isolation is quaintly preposterous.
DeleteThis will be an especially painful time for Jersey, because if any of the ongoing revelations of UK and truly international child abuse rings are decisively tied to Jersey, and it appears they already are, Jersey will again be subject to world scrutiny. ILM's ongoing failure answer simple questions, and the States unwillingness to move honestly on the Verita TOR's will be scrutinized on every level. This decade will see the international unraveling of evidence in the public domain in Europe, and of mainstream media forced to follow the lead of forward independent online journalists. That will be true for Jersey too, which will be forced to accept this or become an official feudal domain. The Crown abdicated its duty for oversight in Jersey and those failings can't be hidden by a UK complicit media either, not when they are fully caught up in their own related scandals.
This may be the end to the fantasy that Jersey can compete in an international finance arena as a superficially modern democracy, whilst hiding so much under the carpets and demanding that outsiders pay no attention to the man behind the curtains.
Anyone who has a copy of the Hampshire Police Report, please bring it to the public domain so we can see for once and for all what has happened!
ReplyDeleteHow many trips to the wishing well will you have to make before it turns up?
DeleteBob, what are your views on this statement made by Sentaor Le Marquand this week when answering a question about the Curtis Warren car bugging disciplinary hearing.........
ReplyDelete"I strongly deplore the decision of the disciplinary tribunal being used in this way. Not only was the hearing by law held in private, but also, the presiding Chief Officer expressly stated in his verbal decision that he did not expect to see his comments in the media and that he did not authorise the use of his comments other than for this hearing; and, in his written decision that he did not authorise the publication of his written judgment other than for the purposes of this hearing."
Is this the same Senator Le Marquand who released parts of a similar confidential document relating to Graeme Power's disciplinary hearing?
I seem to recall that Senator Le Marquand’s reason for releasing the Wilts Report was because it was in the public’s interest. Some may say it was to justify Mr Power’s suspension, others may say that it was a pretty below the belt move because it was held back until Mr Power had retired whereby he was denied the opportunity of defending the allegations contained in the Report.
DeleteIn the Hants Report we understand that it contains a recommendation for disciplinary action against the 3 officers who were subsequently exonerated. Therefore even though both Reports are allegedly confidential if Senator Le Marquand saw fit to release the Wilts Report which contained only allegations which could never be defended, there can be no justification for not releasing the Hants Report.
I just listened to ILMs faux outrage speech and have to say this performance was overplayed beyond transparency.
ReplyDeleteIts tiresome fake disingenuous and embarrassing to the matter under discussion
I don’t think it was one of Senator Le Marquand’s better days.
DeleteA different note: Sir Philip Bailhache is a control freak! and unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for a referendum either! he should never have been involved in the Electorial Commission. So many issues evolve around him! his speeches are patronising, full of his own controlling character! his name sits on every panel or plaque or both! He made a patronising speech on Liberation Day about child abuse, he uses his legal influence to tell us where the UK are going wrong and that he is always right, he's everywhere! He wants to be Chief Minister! God help us! we have to keep asking the questions.... why Jurat's visit prisoners? why an unelected Bailiff is sitting with elected Politicians, why Constables with 1 vote can vote on the same par as Politicians with an Island vote! why the law needs to be brought upto today's standards! the sad fact is unless Sir Philip's reign is still in Jersey, Jersey will have an uphill struggle with Politicians like ILM.... but we must keep going, we must.....
ReplyDeleteYou have raised a number of issues which have been raised before but because this is Jersey and its antiquated electoral system, getting any meaningful changes is so difficult.
DeleteAs far as Senator Bailhache is concerned, he has held positions where he was unaccountable and whose actions were only openly questioned by a few souls who risked being marginalised by those who held the Senator in high esteem.
His success in the Senatorial elections is a testament to his popularity however his failure to be elected Chief Minister was a personal blow but it is evident that he is pulling many strings and held in awe by some misguided States Members.
He has certainly manoeuvred himself into positions where he is able influence matters, for example he is now our Foreign Minister where he was appointed as there is no election process. He is also on the Privileges and Procedures Committee which is responsible for political reform.
I don’t think that Senator Bailhache or any other States Members should have sat on the Electoral Commission let alone that he should have chaired it.
There was a perception that the Electoral Commission was established to ensure that Connetables remained in the States; the outcome has confirmed that perception.
I have always believed that there should be only one form of States Minister but the referendum is biased in favour of the Connetables retention.
Jurats should not be Lay Visitors at the prison, they are judges and it is only in Jersey where such an anomalous practice is permitted.
I do agree with you that we must keep going for change.
What does Jersey have to hide? Jersey does not have a democratic Political nor Legal system, until it does, Jersey will continue to go around in circles, asking the same questions...... over and over and over and over again...... it's that simple! I am afraid until the role of Bailiff and Constables are dealt with as one example, the circle will continue to keep on going round..... an independent Ministry of justice is required as Jersey is not capable of being democratic, fact! sadly a fact!
ReplyDeleteThere may be simple remedies but getting approval for implementing them is very difficult because those in positions of influence have such a stranglehold in matters.
DeleteIt has been said that “ if a problem exists but you don’t see it, it is because you are the problem.”
I have to say, I completely agree with the above point. This Electoral Commission is a complete and utter joke! and I hope Sir Philip is reading this blog, Sir Philip a man who has been in power for too long, now has a strong hold over the Electoral system, he controlled the Legal System (and still does, we are kidding ourselves if we think anything different, we know he sat on cases with huge conflicts of interest!), he is now controlling the Political System, Politicians, challenge him, ask questions and don't turn your heads, if you do, he'll control everything you do, you say and will continue to use his 'legal' stance to get what he wants! Beware! But remember, there is only one of him, he is one person! don't be fooled by him.
ReplyDeleteI think I have covered your point above.
DeleteI have been reading this blog with a lot of interest. I live in France. A lot of people here are talking about the Curtis Warren Case, of a car being bugged without authorisation. What I fail to understand is why Jersey thinks it can do what it likes in relation to the Law? is it because the Island is known as Independent? it feels it is above the law? Please explain if you can.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interest.
DeleteAs you have been following my Blogs you will be aware that although there are now sophisticated bugging devices, the police must obtain permission to use them.
In the Curtis Warren case, the officers received legal advice that even though they should not bug the car, the Jersey Courts were likely to accept any evidence obtained.
We now know that Jersey Courts accepted the evidence, what is interesting is that the evidence was also accepted by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the UK. Therefore the benchmark appears to have been raised.
One wonders how soon police will be able to use bugging devises without consent?
Is there not one serving, senior Jersey Police officer who will blow the whistle on the problems that are outlined here? What is the supposed duty of a police officer faced with such complaints?
ReplyDeleteWhat does silence say about their integrity or are the allegations just so much smoke?
The police do have their Association which should feel confident and mature enough to raise areas of concern.
DeleteDiscipline cases are often messy affairs and this particular case is messy. Discipline cases normally arise following a formal written complaint, in most cases from a member of the public. I am not party to the Hants Report but I gather that although the Privy Council were critical of the officers involved with the bugging, they did not submit a formal complaint.
As mentioned in previous comments, it is evident that Hants Police, at the instigation of the Police Chief and with the Ministers support were invited to investigate the arrest and other matters. However thanks to the Presiding Officer we are told that Hants Police did not receive the co-operation it expected from the Jersey Police and Law Officers Department so one wonders how it could have made any recommendation about disciplinary matters.
What should be established is why was a costly disciplinary process implemented and who is accountable? The Association like States Members should be pressing Senator Le Marquand for answers.
Dear Bob, it has been mentioned that Crown Officer Matthew Jowitt is no longer working in the department after his ill advised information that got us to where we are with the illegal bugging of a car. This has been kept very quiet, it would be good to see this point become public so that people can see that Jersey is actually putting it's house in proper order. And can be trusted to do so. Where can one see that Crown Officer Matthew Jowitt is no longer in his position? is there written documentation? where it the paper trail?
ReplyDelete
DeleteI am led to believe that the Advocate is no longer employed by the States, I don’t know why and I don’t know how much one should read into his departing.
It is not disputed that the Privy Council considered the Advocate’s advice to the officers to be “unwise” but thought that it was “honest and well intentioned.”
However the 3 police officers who acted on the “honest and well-intentioned” advice were hauled before a Disciplinary Board. Why the double standards and is there an “old boys” network within the judicial system?
I think it is best that the matter is now put to bed and hope that the Advocate’s replacement will be a little wiser and ensure that any advice given is in writing.
I believe that Advocate Jowitt is now self-employed, as many Jersey Advocates at partner level are, at Jowitt Legal Services.
Deletehttp://www.jerseylawsociety.je/cgi-bin/lawyers.cgi?memref=371&memdetails=yes
I notice from the press that he remains a Crown Advocate, which means that he is the prosecuting advocate on behalf of the Law Officers Department, on a case by case basis. Much like the CPS employs barristers in the UK as prosecutors on a case by case basis.
The Hampshire Police Report can only be released to those who are referred in it. For example if Curtis Warren asks for it. I have just found this out today. He has a right to see the document in parts that refer to him. I expect that will be most of it, if he does then perhaps this can be made Public for once and for all.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info, but I am not sure if you are correct, but I hope you are. Perhaps someone who thinks they are mentioned will ask?
ReplyDeleteDear Bob, I do believe the above is correct, if The Hants Report has information on a person/persons, those people in question can receive a copy of the report, but only parts that hold relevance to them. I did some research on this point. And it was confirmed.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteI know my Blogs are widely read and hope that at least one reader may believe their name appears in the Hants Report and will apply to Hants Police for a copy to share with readers.
We have Curtis Warren now wanting to know what is in the Hampshire Report, he has the right to ask what is in it! lets see if he does......
ReplyDeleteSo I hear, I hope that if he gets it and will let this Blog publish it. but what's the bet that his wish won't be granted.
ReplyDeleteRule of Law says 'he can', let's see. If Rule of Law happens!
ReplyDeleteI gather that Curtis Warren is also busy defending a claim for savings. So not to sure how far advanced he is with his request for Hants Report
ReplyDeleteCurtis Warren has been offered early release in June this year if he makes his stash of gold available to the authorities but is not at all keeen on the deal offered so far. It will be interesting to see where his money finally ends up - if there is any - because this might reveal more about any international scheming that led to his arrest. Follow the money as they say...
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting will be how Ian Le M settles any agreed terms that are not in accordance with the Jersey sentencing standards and policies for early release.
Mr Welsh has apparently already been moved to a high security UK prison for his imminent release - or perhaps further interrogation?
It would also be interesting to know if the original drugs were ever apprehended and if so whatever happened to them and the Man from Morocco....
Thanks for keeping us updated.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders why the Man from Morocco was never arrested for being part of the conspiracy?
Do we know why Curtis Warren is being released earlier? and why Welsh was brought to the UK? just curious......
ReplyDeleteIt could be that Mr Welsh is due to be released as he must be nearing the end of sentence.
DeleteI don't know much about Curtis Warren, but if he is to be released it could be because he is prepared to give up some of his cash in exchange.
Any further news on the above?
ReplyDeleteSee above.
DeleteDear Bob,
ReplyDeleteI tell you before that my English reading is not perfect, can you please tell me what's gonna happens now, its to difficult for me what's the info is above. Is it really true that they maybe release him this year in June??? So many money for him for transport and look up?? Please help me a little in simple words,
Greatings, Henk.
Hi Henk,
DeleteThanks for your Comment and well done with your English.
I am afraid that I cannot answer your question regarding Curtis Warren's release date other than to say I understood that it could be this summer. I also recall some mention about a deal being arranged whereby Curtis Warren would be released earlier if some sort of deal about his assets could be arranged but that is pure specualation.
I believe that some readers are friends of Curtis Warren, if any of them would like to update us, it would be helpful.
Thank you Bob,
ReplyDeleteI hope also for some info, if I look now at all the things what was legal or illegal and how justice works on the islands, its except the same as here, they do what they wanna do. My meaning is , fair on both sites and not us the law what's best for justice and government.
And I tell you before, I was with Curtis in prison in the Netherlands for 2 year's and drugs is the devil but marijuana............ here in Holland you can buy it on every corner so I think different about that.
I keep following you're blog Bob, good luck!!