Syvret v HM Attorney General [2012] JRC 087A (27 April 2012)

judgment the deputy bailiff: 1. Mr Syvret has applied for me to recuse myself on the grounds that I am personally interested in this Order of Justice. The Order of Justice is one which he has commenced against the Attorney General and many of the matters, he says, of which he complains relate to a time when I was Attorney General. Assuming that to be so then it is absolutely plain that I am not able to take any decisions on the substance of the dispute between the parties. I say dispute because the Solicitor General wants to put the matter on the pending list which shows that the Order of Justice is disputed.

2. As a matter of procedure the ordinary course of events is that when a defendant wishes to place the action on the pending list on the return date, he is entitled to ask the Court that that should happen and as a matter of procedure the Court does so order. This happens without argument in nine times out of ten, if not more often. Very occasionally a plaintiff is able to say to the Court that the case against the defendant is so strong that the defendant should not be permitted to put the matter on the pending list. That is not raised in terms here and indeed quite the opposite in the sense that the Solicitor General says he wishes to apply to strike out the proceedings.

3. Procedurally there is absolutely no doubt at all that the matter should go on the pending list, but Mr Syvret wishes me to recuse myself and if I were to adopt that course then I would have to take a decision to refer this application to put the case on the pending list to an independent judge. It means bringing over a judge from the United Kingdom to preside over a procedural question as to whether the matter should go on the pending list. And when Mr Syvret talks about the saving of resources it may well be that that language should stick in his throat because the cost of bringing over a judge from the mainland for the purposes of dealing with a procedural matter, the results of which are absolutely inevitable following ordinary rules of procedure, would indeed be an affront to the community of this Island which would have to pay for it.

4. So while I accept, without any question, that I am conflicted, that I am not able to preside over anything which is remotely contentious in relation to these proceedings, I am faced with the fact that a contention has arisen in relation to something which ought to give rise to no contention whatever because the procedure is so clear. I have to say that I find it very difficult.

5. With a great deal of regret I am going to adjourn this matter - as to whether or not it can go on the pending list - to an independent judge. The Court will fix a date and the parties will be told. It may be that it will be done by television link, but the case is certainly not going to be adjourned sine die, Mr Syvret has taken the opportunity of commencing proceedings and the defendant is entitled to have those dealt with in the ordinary course of events and it is not open to any plaintiff to start proceedings and then demand that they be adjourned.

6. I make those comments only to help Mr Syvret in the context of the Order which is now being made, but I will ensure that the matter is referred at the earliest opportunity to an independent judge who receive the application from the Solicitor General to place the matter on the pending list and to receive Mr Syvret's objections to that course of action. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 10 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII