States Meeting Transcript - 29/04/2009

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 29th APRIL 2009

PUBLIC BUSINESS RESUMPTON .............................................................5

1. Police Complaints and Discipline: extension to Honorary Officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries (P.30/2009) (continued) ...................................................5

1. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.....................................................5
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..................................................................6
3. Senator F.E.Cohen:......................................................................7
4. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin:....................................................7
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:......................................................7
6. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ..........................................................8
7. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................9
8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................10
9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................10
10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................12
11. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................12
12. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................13
13. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................15
14. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................16
15. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................18
16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................18
17. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................19 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................21

2. Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee: amendment (P.31/2009)..................................................................23

2.1 Senator B.E. Shenton (Chairman of the Chairmen's Committee):......................23

1. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................23
2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................24
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................24
4. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................25

3. Draft Sea Fisheries (Licensing of Fishing Boats) (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.35/2009)............................................................26

Senator A.J.H. Maclean (Minister for Economic Development):..............................26 3.1 The Connétable of St. Clement (Assistant Minister for Economic Development, rapporteur):.............................................................................26

1. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................27
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................27
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:........................................27
4. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................28
5. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................28

6. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................28
7. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................28
8. The Connétable of St. Clement:........................................................29

4. Draft Public Elections (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.36/2009)....31

1. The Connétable of St. Ouen (Chairman of Comité des Connétable s):...................31 4.1.1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................31
   2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................31
   3. The Connétable of St. Ouen:............................................................32

5. Jersey Community Relations Trust: Appointment of Trustee (P.38/2009)............34

Senator B.I. Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs): ......................................35 5.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier (Assistant Minister for Home Affairs - Rapporteur):..35 Deputy S. Power:.............................................................................36

6. Suspension of States Employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: Revised Procedures (P.46/2009) ..................................................................36

6.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................37

7. Suspension of States employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: revised procedures (P.46/2009) – second amendment. ..........................................45

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Chief Minister):...........................................45

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................48

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................48 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................48

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumed..................................................................48

7. Suspension of States employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: revised procedures (P.46/2009) – second amendment (continued)..............................48

Senator T.A. le Sueur:.........................................................................48

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................51

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................51
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................52
3. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................52
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................52
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................53
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................53
7. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................54
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................54
9. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................55
10. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................57
11. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................58
12. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................61
13. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................63
14. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................63
15. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................63
16. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................63

2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................64

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................65

3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................66

5. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................66
6. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................66
7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................67
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................67
9. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................67
10. Senator S. Syvret:....................................................................68
11. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................68
12. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................69
13. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................69
14. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................69
15. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................69
16. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................70

3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................71

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................71
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................72

7.3.4 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................72

8. Suspension of States employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: revised procedures (P.46/2009) – amendment. ..................................................72

8.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (Minister for Home Affairs): ................................72

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................74
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................74
4. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................75
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................75
6. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................76
7. Deputy J.A. Hilton:.....................................................................76 The Attorney General:........................................................................76
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................76
9. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................77
10. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................77
11. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................77
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................77
13. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................78
14. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................78
15. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................78 The Attorney General:........................................................................78
16. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................79

9. Suspension of States Employees and States of Jersey Police Officers: Revised Procedures (P.46/2009) (continued).....................................................81

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................81
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................82
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................82
4. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................82
5. The Attorney General:..................................................................83
6. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................84
7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................84
8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................84
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................85
10. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................86

11. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................86
12. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................86
13. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................87
14. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................87
15. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................88
16. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................89
17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................90 The Deputy of St. Martin:....................................................................91 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................92

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................92

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Police Complaints and Discipline: extension to Honorary Officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries (P.30/2009) (continued)

The Deputy Bailiff :

So we return to the debate on Projet 30, Police Complaints and Discipline: extension to Honorary Officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries. The matter is now open for debate.

1. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I firstly wish to challenge the Deputy of St. Martin's criticism of the Connétable s for the lateness of submission of comments regarding this proposition. Yes, they were late but the Deputy himself must accept some, if not most, of the blame for this. The proposition was lodged on 5th March and came as a total surprise to the Island Centeniers. They approached me and on 24th March I sought confirmation from the Deputy that he had consulted with the Comité des Chefs. For those unaware of this group, they are the body constituted by Act of this House to represent the Island Centeniers. The Deputy 's response was that he had been in correspondence with the Attorney General for some time and as the Attorney General was the titular head of the Honorary Police he saw no reason to consult with anyone else. The Deputy of St. Martin would be the first, I contend, to criticise should any other Member bring a proposition where those most affected by any changes proposed [Approbation] had not been consulted. Yet he appeared not to want to consult with the Centeniers. On 2nd April when the Deputy accepted a delay of this proposition until this sitting, I challenged him on the floor of this to use the delay as an opportunity to meet with the Centeniers. I have to say that when I spoke to the Deputy after the sitting he did not appear too pleased at my actions because they had placed him in what he believed was a difficult position. The meeting with the Deputy and the Centeniers finally happened on Friday of last week when the Deputy informed them that he was proceeding with his proposition, regardless of any concerns which they wished to raise. On Monday the Comité des Connétable s met with the Centeniers to agree the comments as submitted. These comments attempted to address the concerns of the Centeniers. I submit to Members that the lack of action on the part of the Deputy in consulting with the Centeniers earlier must carry most of the blame for the late arrival of our comments. I do not intend to comment on the facts of the case used by the Deputy to justify his bringing of the proposition, other than to say that the actions of the police officers were, at the very worst, a slight error of judgment. They certainly were not actions which merit a change in this law. As far as charging of persons at Parish Hall Inquiries or elsewhere, at the moment there is no ambiguity in the law. All the actions of all honorary officers of the Island, up to and including Parish Hall Inquiries, are subject to the Police Complaints and Discipline (Jersey) Law 1999 and to the Police Complaints and Discipline Procedures (Jersey) Regulations 2000. This proposition therefore must be aimed at the actions of Centeniers in respect of their role in decisions to prosecute or otherwise. If this is so then this proposition must be rejected because it is deficient in the respect that Centeniers undertake the role

of adjudication of facts and possible charging of people at places other than Parish Hall Inquiries. Persons are charged at the airport, the harbour and police headquarters. To restrict the proposition merely to actions at Parish Hall Inquiries is not the right way forward. The Deputy yesterday gave the impression that Centeniers can both investigate a case and then hear the same case at a Parish Hall Inquiry. This is definitely not correct. The Centenier holding the inquiry at the Parish Hall must be independent of the officers who have done the investigation. As far as the charging of persons at Parish Hall Inquiries or elsewhere is concerned, I believe that the present system has served the Island very well and continues to do so. The Centeniers of the Island give an incredibly

good and accurate service and this proposition should not be considered until there has been proper consultation with all those involved in the delivery of this service. The dangers associated with the acceptance of this proposition could, in effect, I believe, be throwing out the baby with the bath water. I implore Members to reject it.

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Deputy quoted at length from the Helen Miles Report on the Parish Hall Inquiry. If any Members would like an electronic copy of this, it is 199 pages; I would be delighted to let them have one. To my knowledge there are only 3 Members of this House now who have been Centeniers. I cannot speak for the Connétable s but certainly among the hoi poloi [Laughter]. Sadly this means that there are only 3 of us, apart from the Connétable s, who really understand the implications of this proposition. The proposition is based on one event and is only viewed from the perspective of the accused. It seems to me that it is unwise to read too much into any one event. A need for change, as envisaged, can only be determined by analysis of a series of events. You know, one swallow does not a summer make. As a corollary there are very, very few - if any - complaints about decisions at Parish Hall s. The Deputy is trying to make a case based on a single isolated incident. There is confusion in the proposition, there is the conduct of the Parish Hall Inquiry which could well be the subject of a complaints and disciplinary proceedings but in this case the complaint appears to be against decision. The proper place for a complaint against this is not through the complaints and disciplinary laws and regulations but with the Attorney General. Added to which the Deputy has confused the word "conduct" with decision in his speech last night. The Deputy has reported the facts as stated by the individual in the case. The Centenier will have made his decision based on the prosecution bundle supplied by the police. I do not know whether the Deputy has seen the prosecution bundle. Certainly Members of this House have not, and without these it is impossible to comment on the quality of the decision. In normal proceedings the Centenier will have been the only person at the inquiry to have seen the bundle at that stage. Plus if the accused does not agree with decision, which is based on the police evidence, then they are always advised that they can have the case heard in the Magistrate's Court. The Deputy also maintains that the Centenier's role in a Parish Hall Inquiry is an investigatory role. This is not the case. The investigatory work is performed by the States Police who prepare a prosecution bundle which is then discussed at the Parish Hall Inquiry. The Centenier makes a decision based on the facts. As the Deputy states, the Centenier, who shall have read the report of the incident before the inquiry starts, shall consider such other material as he or she thinks fit, including hearing from the attendee. Well, of course, the Centenier hears from the attendee. What sort of justice is it if the attendee is not allowed to say anything? A Parish Hall Inquiry is held to discuss the facts in the case with those involved. It is a review of the evidence with those involved. There are very clear rules, and I speak from experience here, no Centenier ever prosecutes in cases where he has been the investigator. I do not know whether Members have read the Attorney General's comments but as he states in paragraph 12 of his comments: "A Centenier's decision is always subject to change by the Attorney General upon him receiving a representation." The Attorney General also emphasises that the Centenier's conduct is subject to complaints and discipline, but as I have said, the Centenier's decision is subject to the Attorney General's override. As I have said already the Deputy refers to conduct where he should have referred to decision in his speech. This particular proposal does raise some interesting issues. If the Centenier's decision, as opposed to his conduct, is subject to the complaints and disciplines procedure, will the Attorney General's decision to prosecute be subject to the same complaints and discipline procedure. Who might review a

complaints and discipline process for correctness? That would be a police matter, a police process after all. Just consider the implications. Sadly, the Deputy of St. Martin has allowed his enthusiasm to override his normal measured approach. This proposition is based on a single case and extrapolates that case to the whole Parish Hall Inquiry system. I ask Members to reject this proposition.

3. Senator F.E.Cohen:

This proposition seeks to interfere with a well established principle that is at the core of our unique and cherished honorary service system. The principle is that decisions in relation to prosecutions should ultimately rest with the Attorney General. Matters of conduct are entirely separate from matters relating to prosecution decision and the proposition effectively conflates the issues of conduct and prosecution decisions. The effect of the proposition would be to move the authority in relation to prosecution decision from the Attorney General to the police or the Police Complaints Authority. It is essential to appreciate that a Parish Hall Inquiry is a prosecution process and therefore the decisions of the Centenier are presently subject to the ultimate authority of the Attorney General. This mechanism already provides the appropriate and necessary controls to ensure consistency, fairness and justice. Matters relating to the conduct of Centeniers are already subject to the 1999 Discipline Law. This extends not just to Parish Hall Inquiries but to the general conduct of Centeniers. In my view we have a system that works well with the appropriate separation and control of both prosecution and conduct issues. As a former Centenier, and therefore clearly a member of Senator Ferguson's hoi poloi, I will be voting against this proposition and I urge other Members to do the same.

4. Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

I can add a little bit more to the previous speakers, and as a previous Centenier myself, I would like to urge Members to somewhat disregard the very lengthy example that our esteemed Deputy of St. Martin gave us yesterday as an illustration of this particular proposition. Without a doubt what the Centenier does in his office at the Parish Hall is in fact part of the prosecution process and, as such, it would be outside the police complaints. The complaints against a Centenier's conduct would be through the other article, which I think is 99. But what the Centenier does in dealing a report is that first of all his job is the determination of jurisdiction, and by that - for the benefit of Members - will explain that the magistrate's powers of punishment and respect of an individual offence are limited to a £5,000 fine and a sentence of custody to 12 months. It is a prosecution's duty to assist the magistrate in determining the seriousness of an offence and whether the case can be dealt with and sentenced properly in the Magistrate's Court or whether the matter should be committed to the Royal Court where there are greater powers of punishment. In effect, what the Centenier is doing at the very, very early stages is determining what scale the case merits. Is it a case where the Centenier can deal with it himself, in the Parish Hall , by way of a fine - in my day I think was up to the level of £50 - or whether it can be dealt with by way of a written caution or words of advice, or whether the case merits a charge and prosecution in the Magistrate's Court. But the Centenier must determine the scale and the jurisdiction of the case. At that stage he must decide his recommendations that he might have to put to the Magistrate. Whether the Magistrate can deal with it, depending upon the scale of the offence or whether it might ultimately have to be referred to the Royal Court. This is, in fact, the very early stages of the prosecution and as such it should fall outside the scope of the Police Complaints and Discipline (Jersey) Law 1999. In fact, I am concerned that should this proposition be passed by the Chamber today that it would in fact be a situation where a frivolous complaint against the Centenier during his process of prosecution could delay a case for many months, and I suggest that a contentious series of parking offences could be

delayed almost indefinitely by a frivolous complaint. I would absolutely and positively urge the Members of the House to consider this very careful and we do not want to have situation where frivolous complaints could be made during the first stage of the prosecution.

5. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other Members and I will resist the urge to repeat it all. But I would like to just bullet point a few things. Having looked at the paperwork provided, we heard one side of the story, and it came to me that we are not a Court of Appeal. If we were we would want to hear both sides of the story and we would want to examine all the facts. But we are not, so it is one-sided version. Prosecutions, or the decision to prosecute, must be free of all political interference. It is fundamental to our system. If we allow this to go through in its current format, as Senator Ferguson said, next we will be examining whether the Attorney General should have made the decision or otherwise to prosecute, and next we will be trying to interfere in the proceedings in the Royal Court. We interfere with this ancient system at our peril. You might have gathered I will not be supporting the proposition. But while on my feet what I would like to do and I am not one of the Senator's hoi poloi, I have never been a Centenier, but I have seen the very good work that Centenier's do. While on my feet I would like to acknowledge the many hours of very good work put in by the Honorary Police. [Approbation]

6. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

Firstly, can I declare an interest having been a Centenier in St. Helier from 1970 to 1980 and in St. John from 1983 to 1986, and one of the hoi poloi of Senator Ferguson. If I could correct her, there is 5 hoi poloi in the Chamber [Laughter] If I could just give a little bit of background of back prior to 1976, which may be of help to Members, that is when the first Honorary Police Bill came into being. I can recall dealing, at that time, prior to that law coming into place, with Parish Hall Inquiries and one of the cases I dealt with was a report from the Harbourmaster who, in fact, has the same authority as a Centenier. But he sent the report to the Town Hall and I had the job of adjudicating. The 2 accused were the Solicitor General and a Jurat of the day. After explaining the procedure to the 2 accused of the misdemeanour they had been involved with, of failing to register their vessel, I explained to them that they had the opportunity of either being dealt with at the Parish Hall or they could take it to the Magistrate's Court, and that they did not in fact have to attend any Parish Hall Inquiry under law. That was the procedure then and in fact the Solicitor General of the day and the Jurat of the day elected to go to court. Proceedings were as follows: I took them to the Magistrate's Court and they were both duly fined for the misdemeanour. That shows, even as far back as nearly 40 years ago, that there was a procedure in place that helped the public. They did not have to attend the Parish Hall Inquiry then, the 2 accused on that particular case decided they would come along and see how the procedure worked and it worked well and they went to court and they paid up their £10, I think, fine or whatever it was at the time for their misdemeanour. But the procedure has been updated in 1976 and became more transparent, as the Deputy of St. Martin would like everything to be so transparent, and then it has been updated on several other occasions since I have been in this Chamber. It is a shame that over many years now, since and I know the Deputy of St. Martin very well and as an ex professional policeman from the United Kingdom he looks at things slightly differently to what the honorary system works and

he has, over many occasions in this Chamber, brought amendments - or tried to bring amendments - to the floor of the House to improve the transparency of the system we have, which is good because if we do not keep on looking at ourselves then obviously we stagnate. But that said, I do not think he does the system any justice in some of the things he says. In fact, I have a letter here from our Parish Chef de Police at the moment. If I may be permitted to read what he says: "I am writing to you to voice my concerns over the Deputy of St. Martin's proposed amendment to the Honorary Police Complaints and Disciplinary Procedure (Jersey) Regulation 2000 to include complaints against honorary officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries. Firstly, may I refer to the report on the incident in November 2007. I am led to believe that the Deputy 's version of events is only from the motorist and is not aware of all the facts and no attempt has been made to ask the Centenier, the Chef de Police or the Parish Hall , not that they would be able to comment as the Attorney General would do this. My point being how fortunate we are that Centeniers make sure they are in possession of all the facts before making a decision. Secondly, to imply that Centeniers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries are not accountable is very misleading and technically untrue. At every point during the inquiry the person is told they do not have to accept the Centenier's decision and if they

wish they can go before the Magistrate. Over the past 5 years at the end of every Parish Hall Inquiry that I have carried out, I have given the person the choice that if they are not happy with my decision they can go to the Magistrate's Court. Not one person has taken up that opportunity. If a person thinks that the Centenier has made a bad decision, they can write to the Attorney General to review the case. The Attorney General has the power to overturn the Centenier's decision and reprimand the Centenier if he feels an error has occurred. All complaints against honorary officers are made in the first instance to the Connétable who then passes this on to the Attorney General to be dealt with. I therefore think we are very accountable. To have Parish Hall Inquiry decisions investigated by Complaints and Discipline would, in my opinion, be very dangerous. It would be the equivalent of Metropolitan Police investigating the Crown Prosecution Service. It would also mean that decisions to charge would also be investigated by Complaints and Discipline. This is equally concerning. Not that I am afraid of being investigated. I believe that in St. John we are very fair, impartial, polite, honest and tolerant. I am extremely proud of all my officers and the way in which we conduct ourselves. Now, Centeniers make sure that cases meet the evidence test and are in the public interest before charging. Having Centeniers do this is vital because they are independent of the States of Jersey Police. They make sure cases are evidentially correct and sound before taking them to court to be dealt with. It keeps the States of Jersey Police officers aware of the fact that all cases need to be sound before they charge a person. If Centeniers were not there, cases charged by another system would get to court and then drop due to lack of evidence. The cost to the taxpayer would probably run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. In the recent Howard Report for Penal Reform, the Parish Hall system received a glowing report and was the envy of many jurisdictions around the world in the way it dealt with the teenagers and their first dealings with the legal system. The way it helps to reduce the list of minor offences and therefore does not clog up the Magistrate's Court received acclaim. On behalf of all the Honorary Police, I would ask the Members not to support this proposition." This is signed by David Curtis , the Chef de Police of St. John, who is in fact sitting the gallery this morning. The last paragraph about Howard League on Penal Reforms, in fact it was in 1973 that the late John Morris and myself started the procedure at Parish Hall Inquiries of putting young offenders on voluntary probation for up to 6 months and with the Probation Service this was taken on board and, in fact, this is still used today. It is a superb system and I was so gratified when in fact I read that in the Howard League Report knowing full well that the Honorary Police, after all those years - that was put in place 35 years ago - has gone from strength to strength in the way it deals with children, youngsters and the

public in general. Therefore I ask the Members here today to reject this proposition.

7. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

I am not going to repeat all that has been said already but I think there is just one or 2 points, bearing in mind that I have been retired as a 27 and a half year police officer 11 years ago, 10 years ago, and therefore am probably not up to date. I am quite pleased that this proposition has been brought forward because what it does is it clarifies points that I suspect that many members of the public did not realise in that there is a separation of responsibilities and duties of honorary police officers. In fact their role is quite unique and distinct. Indeed, many years ago the United Kingdom adopted in very simple principles of the simple role of the honorary system in their parish wardens that they set up, for small communities especially, and they recognised the value of it. But I think the main distinction here is that over years it has evolved but a Centenier being a police officer and as a young police officer I remember being thrown out of the Parish of Grouville because I had no right of being their without their permission as a States police officer. So we have advanced some way since then [Laughter] and there is many a tale that could be told, which will not be today. But the one thing that I think that the public might not be fully aware of is this dual role of being a police officer, an honorary police officer and being in a Parish Hall as the prosecutor and that there are 2 routes should a complaint be made against an officer or whatever. From my experience, yes, in the past there was the odd occasion when it was suggested that putting your

hands up at the Parish Hall and getting a verbal caution was a lot more preferential than going to court, if for nothing else for your time, et cetera. I think those days are probably, in the main, gone. The one thing that I think we must bear in mind is that in all the years when I was a police officer when anybody wished to make a complaint, whether it was about a States or an Honorary Police officer, the public did have the choice. As has been rightly said, there was procedure where they could go to the Connétable , if it involves Honorary Police officers, or indeed to the duty inspector or the duty officer as I understand they are called now at police headquarters. Of course, there is also the role of the titular head of Attorney General. I am afraid I cannot support this particular proposition as I, too, are concerned that there was too much emphasis on one case which can be dealt with in the appropriate way, whatever that is. Also the fact that the proposition is incorrect,

because it only refers to the Parish Hall instead of the other places where the evidence in the prosecution might occur. I think that is all I need to say on this point.

8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

The first thing I would like to say is that I, again, am one of these Members that have never had experience of being in the Honorary Police but I have had experience of being at the receiving end of 3 Parish Hall Inquiries. [Laughter] Never in St. Brelade. On the 3 occasions one was for speeding, one was turning right into a street when there was no right turn, and the third one was forgetting to put safety belt on. In all 3 cases I was treated - this is before I was a States Member - with respect and indeed fairness. So my first reading of this proposition was that this is a report or proposition, in my view subjective, by one individual who is a Deputy about one other individual and his son, which was one isolated incident in one parish and in my view, at this stage, it does not prove that we need this amendment or that the request in the proposition can be upheld. There were 2 strong personalities involved in this: one is the individual who was driving and the other one is the St. Clement Honorary Police officer, and there may or may not have been error of judgment. It is not for me to judge on that because, again, as Members have said, we are being asked to comment on something and we have not seen the case report. I am going to make 2 short comments. The first thing I would like Members to do is reread the comments of the Comité des Connétable on page 2, which is the second paragraph, and that is: "The Honorary Police are subject to the Police Complaints and Discipline (Jersey) Law 1999 and to the Police Honorary Complaints and Discipline Procedures 2000. These regulations set out the code of conduct for members and the correct procedure to follow when a complaint is received." I would then ask Members to reread paragraph 15 of the Attorney General's comments where he says: "The 1999 law provides a framework for dealing with complaints about the conduct of members of the Honorary Police." If one looks at the Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure, it is clear that if a member of the Honorary Police commits an offence or the discipline of member's conduct does not meet the standard there is a procedure to deal with that and those procedures deal with requirements for honesty, integrity, fairness, impartiality, politeness and intolerance. I do not believe, and I do not accept, that this one incident that the Deputy of St. Martin is talking about, and the resultant actions that took place against the individual, justify this proposition and I shall be opposing it.

9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I will try and keep it brief. It sounds like a lot of Members are standing up and saying that they cannot make a decision just based on one example, so perhaps it would be very useful if, in summing up, the Deputy gave us several other examples. I am sure he has them in his armoury. I am sure we could all give certain examples. I think it is important, though, to bring the debate back to what it is really about. We are not here to debate individual cases about where Parish Hall Inquiries may go wrong. I am sure that can happen in any system, States Police included. But rather what we are talking about is how the complaints are dealt with thereafter. But I do feel that I am compelled to pick up on one of the comments by the Deputy of St. John. He gave an example

saying that when he first got his spurs, so to speak, in the Honorary Police in St. John , I presume .. St. Helier was it? Thanks for the correction. He said that most people are given the option to go to Magistrate's Court but they do not take it up and that is supposed to be some kind of hard and categorical evidence that people prefer the Parish Hall system. Now, seeing as my fellow Deputy from St. Brelade has also chose to do some of his dirty washing in public, I am quite happy to give a candid example of a time that I had to face the Parish Hall in St. Helier. I do want to point out that this is just one example but it is really to illustrate that the Deputy of St. John's story does not tell the whole of the story, I believe. I used to run a furniture business with my brother in a former life. I gave it up because it was too much hard work [Laughter] and here I am in the States doing a different type of even harder work, I would suggest. But it is not so hard on the back thankfully. Now, we were pulled over for having a defective vehicle. We had a white van and it was I will not comment on whether it was or it was not, but the process that we were subject to within the Parish Hall seemed to me to be fairly arbitrary in the sense that we were given random fines, it seemed for each individual defect. Incidentally it was my brother who was driving my van at the time so we were both called in. He was given one round of fines for being the driver; I was given a separate round of fines for being the owner. They were all slightly different and fanciful. Now, I and my brother disagreed with this. I am quite confident that if it had gone to Magistrate's Court we would have probably got a much lower fine and I could have certainly argued, because there was a case, because 2 weeks before the van had been vandalised, we had taken it to the police station, the police had inspected the van and they said that there was no problem there. Certainly we would have been pulled up by the States Police, you would have expected. There was no other damage; there was no deterioration in the vehicle within those 2 weeks so I think that was one of the arguments I could have certainly put forward from myself. I believe that if it had gone to a Magistrate's Court with a good lawyer, we would have probably been cleared of it. The point is most people do not want to go through the humiliation of having to go to the Magistrate's Court to have their name put in the paper. They are more likely to just pay a fine. I think the example that the Deputy gave is a very salient one because at the end of the day we were only talking about a £20 maximum fine for this individual and he was encouraged to plead guilty even though he firmly believed that he was not guilty. It is quite arguable that many people in that position who did not have the fortitude of character, so to speak, would have just coughed up the fine or perhaps taken a caution rather than go to court and have to go through the whole rigmarole. So although it is a slightly tangential point, if I can call it that, I think it does address the Deputy of St. John's slightly

false claim. But I would bring it back and say that The Deputy of St. John :

If I may interject. At no time did I put in - as it was put - any slightly false claim. I was stating actual fact and if the Deputy himself got himself into a bother I am sure he was given the option of going to court. No more, no less. If he chose to accept a fine, he obviously pleaded guilty to the offence.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I am not sure what the Deputy of St. John is objecting to. I am not saying that the information that he gave was false, I am saying that inference that he was drawing from that claim, that people are quite happy if people do not accept the chance to go to Magistrate's Court it is because they are happy that they have had justice at the Parish Hall Inquiry, I am saying the inference that you are drawing from that is not a valid one. If you are happy with that we can proceed, but I am by no means imputing the Deputy 's motives. So, just to conclude, I think it is important that we say here that we are not here to judge the case. This case is a spent one, it is just one example that has been given. It sounds like Members would like to hear other examples of how the system has broken down and how the complaints procedure is not working, so I would invite the Deputy in his, what I am sure will be a brief summing up to maybe give us more examples so that we do not just have to rely on this one isolated case.

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Although he has left us, I was intrigued by Deputy Power trying to turn right, which I think he has [Laughter] made considerable efforts as I am sure he would not mind me saying. I was going to build on one of the many excellent Deputy of St. Brelade, Deputy Tadier 's, speech, should we base a case on one example. I think, yes, we should if the Deputy of St. Martin feels there has been an injustice done he is fully entitled, with his usual terrier like abilities, to pursue it with tenacity and to draw out the general issues that there might be. What I am worried about, and it has been brought up by other speakers, is this conflation, this confusion of issues. I think he is trying to put

under the Police Discipline Complaints Procedure he is trying to put implied criticism of the absence of checks and balances and of proper redress in the prosecution procedure. Had he framed this proposition in terms of concerns, in his view, about that procedure and reforms that he wished to see introduced to deal with that, I think it would have been a much, much better approach. One Member has suggested to me, would a look at the Police Complaints Discipline Procedure be a good subject for Scrutiny. Well, it might well be a good subject for Scrutiny but I do not think this is the issue we are looking at. The issue we are looking at are the concerns, and indeed the concerns that the Deputy and his troop of scrutineers looked at a year or so ago, of the whole issue of the Centenier's role in the prosecution process. That was very thoroughly scrutinised as I recall, with great feeling and detail, and I am wondering whether we are indirectly revisiting that. I would beseech the Deputy to re-examine his stance on this issue and to reconsider whether he should, if he feels as he does deeply about this on behalf of his constituents, have targeted it on the prosecution system rather than on the need to bring Centeniers  in these roles within the Complaints and Discipline Procedure which I think is the inappropriate procedure to deal with it.

11. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I am very pleased this morning to have an opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Honorary Police officers, particularly by the Centeniers, which I was able to see and experience

- as indeed was my former colleague in the Youth Court, Deputy Green - over quite a number of years. I often said to new Centeniers as they came to the court for the first time, having been sworn in, wishing them well and so on, that some of the decisions that they would have to make were every bit as difficult as the decisions that I had to make. Particularly in the areas of discretion in relation to deciding what was in the public interest and when matters could be dealt with at a Parish Hall and so on. Having said all those things, I have to say that I find the proposition of the Deputy of St. Martin a rather confusing, if not confused, proposition. Because he started off by saying he believes the existing law is satisfactory. He then goes on to invite me to seek to amend that law. Now, of course, we all know that the real issue is he disagrees with the interpretation of the law based on it by the Attorney General in relation to what is meant by the word "conduct". The word "conduct" is included in the existing law and the view of the Attorney General is that the decision made by a Centenier and matters relating to that decision are not part of conduct, they are part of something else. That is a view which I also wish to support. But really the basis of the proposition is that we should now amend the law to make it clear that the decision is part of a disciplinary matter. Now, there was no dispute, I believe, between the Deputy of St. Martin and the Attorney General over the matter that if a Centenier, during the course of a Parish Hall Inquiry, were to swear at a person or otherwise were to misbehave in such a manner, that would be conduct. There is no dispute on that and there is amendment required in relation to that. The issue is whether, as I said before, the decision made, a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, in particular, should be subject to a disciplinary matter. But that decision is very often discretionary and it is, as I have often said to new Centeniers, a very difficult decision. It cannot be right that a person can be subject to disciplinary proceedings in relation to what is essentially a discretionary matter. Even if that were so, it would not provide a remedy to the person in a case in which a Centenier might inadvertently make a bad decision. There is in existence perfectly good remedies. If a complainant believes that a case should be taken to a court and the Centenier has decided not to, then the matter can be referred on to the Attorney General and the Attorney General can direct that a prosecution take place. In the other direction, if a person believes that should not have been prosecuted - and clearly that was the case of the gentleman in this particular case - what happens then is he is presented before the court, he pleads not guilty and the matter is now automatically passed on to a paid prosecutor, a legal adviser, to deal the matter. If the Centenier is wrong, his decision is reviewed. That is the correct way of doing it. Now, the example taken by the Deputy of St. Martin is not quite as good an example as he may think because, in fact, in this particular case having ended up at the Magistrate's Court the matter was referred to a professional prosecutor and the professional prosecutor decided that there was a strong enough case to take to trial and the matter went to a full trial which was presided over by myself and I acquitted. But you cannot blame a Centenier for having made a decision if that decision was subsequently affirmed by a professional prosecutor. Are we then to discipline the professional prosecutor also for having made a mistake? The situation becomes utterly ludicrous. He was a very young and inexperienced professional prosecutor but no doubt seeking to do what he thought right. So I have dealt in general with the big issues. There is another remedy available and that is the correct remedy. But I wanted, in closing, to deal with some technical matters and that is the wording of the proposition because the wording of the proposition basically asks the definition of complaints is widened to include complaints against Honorary Police officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries. Unfortunately that does not achieve anything at all because it does not deal with the underlying meaning of the word "conduct". So if we add in words saying "including what happens at a Parish Hall Inquiry" but do not amend "conduct" we get nowhere. Because it does not do that I would be left in a very confused situation. I have no doubt that the House is going to overwhelmingly vote against this proposition, but if it did hypothetically vote in favour, I, on the wording of this, would not know what I was supposed to do. So I am going to oppose this for a whole number of reasons but mainly because I think it is

utterly wrong that a decision to prosecute be subject to disciplinary action.

12. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

Before I begin I would just like to pick up on the point the Minister just made about he would be surprised if this proposition was not rejected overwhelmingly. I find that quite a surprising assertion in view of the question I am going to ask later on in my speech. But I would just ask I do not know whether it is a ruling or whether it is just a general point about the fact that many Members directly are members of the Honorary Police in their capacity as Constables, I just do not see where that fits with conflicts of interest and so. So I just leave that on the floor. I do not know whether that can be the subject of a ruling or whether that is something we just plough on regardless.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Sorry, Deputy , are you asking me?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I am asking you whether there is a question there that needs a ruling. The Deputy Bailiff :

In relation to?

The Deputy of St. Mary :

A conflict of interest, because as I understand it Constables are members of the Honorary Police. The Deputy Bailiff :

I am quite satisfied there is no interest which requires them to withdraw. There is no reason why they should not contribute or speak on this matter. They are there simply as officials. This is a question as to whether there should or not be a disciplinary process against Centeniers in relation to their charging decisions. I see no conflict of interest in relation to Constables on that.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Thank you, Sir, for that ruling. I also tend to take a fairly wide view of conflicts of interest. I think it is brought up too often and people say: "Oh well, I have got this or that little conflict and therefore I must leave the Chamber" and I find that slightly odd. But there is still a question there and I am glad some Constables have intervened in this debate and maybe a few more will give us the benefit of their views. I wanted to start by upping the score. I have had several encounters with what now seem to be called the hoi poloi, 6 or 7 I counted them up a couple of days ago, so I am top of the stakes, partly because I think in my former life driving around delivering bicycles I did a lot of driving so I came into contact with the Honorary Police many times. My score is 6 to one of good encounters, and one questionable one. One that I think was not correctly handled. So that is a good score. But we are not talking about the general run of how the Honorary Police functions and I echo the sentiments of Deputy Green and the Minister in praising the principles and the general functions of the general operations of the Honorary Police and, in particular, the spirit of public service which underlies that whole operation. It does deserve to be underlined, it is a remarkable system. But we are not talking about how it runs in general, we are talking about what happens when it is broke. What happens when something goes wrong. So I just want to make a few points and I hope they will be clear because this is a proposition which is in danger of getting muddy. The first point is about prosecution decisions. We have heard from, I forget who - one of the Constables, the Constable of St. Martin - who said that this whole the Parish Hall Inquiry is a prosecution process and it is also in the A.G.'s (Attorney General) comments. If I can refer Members to his paragraph 25 in the A.G.'s comments: "I reached the view some years ago that the 1999 law simply is not consistent with treating complaints about a prosecution decision, as a complaint for the purposes of that law." Now, I do not have any argument with the notion that it

should not be allowable to complain in the ordinary course of events about a prosecution decision. Prosecution decisions in general should not be complainable, they are determined in the courts. It is crazy, as the Minister pointed out, that they should be second-guessed by the complaints procedure. So let us put that to one side. We are not talking about questioning prosecution decisions. There is a higher issue which Deputy Le Hérissier raised about the matter of questioning major prosecution decisions and how that process itself is scrutinised. But that is not the issue we are talking about today. We are talking about complaints about the conduct of the Honorary Police where it falls short and, by implication, the States Police. So that is the first point. We are not, in my view, talking about questioning prosecution decisions. I can see some nods and people getting cross about that, let us hope they contribute later, but it is quite clear from the Deputy of St. Martin's proposition that - and no doubt he will come back to it in his summing up - distinguishing between the aspects of a Parish Hall Inquiry which are prosecutory and the aspects which are not prosecutory but which are investigatory and judicial. So that is the first point. The second point is that the account that the Deputy of St. Martin gave us was not about the I will just read out his paragraph 4: "The investigation of the complaints against the police constable were conducted but the A.G. refused to accept the complaint against the Centenier who carried out the Parish Hall Inquiry. He rejected the complaint on the grounds that the Police Complaints and Discipline (Jersey) 1999 is concerned with disciplinary offences committed by Honorary Police officers and is not concerned with the prosecution service." But, as I understand it, the complaints were not about the prosecution as a prosecution, they were about the conduct of the Honorary Police in arriving at that whole scenario and it was spelt out in detail by the Deputy . Clearly there was something wonky with it and the person felt that they had to complain about it. So I do distinguish between prosecution and pre-prosecution or ancillary to prosecution and conduct in general. The third point is where does this leave a member of the public who wishes to make a complaint not about the decision itself but about the conduct? My question to the Assembly is does the Assembly recognise that this right of complaint is necessary? Does it recognise that this right of complaint is important or are the actions of the Honorary Police, and by implication the States Police, above complaint? Now, we know from what has been happening with the G20 demonstrations and I do not wish to compare Jersey to what goes on in London when all the leaders of the world turn up. But the fact is that we know from that, that policemen make mistakes. In fact sometimes they go way beyond what they are supposed to be doing. Quite rightly, the I.P.C.C. (Independent Police Complaints Commission) now is looking at 100 clearly documented cases of abuse of police powers. So by analogy where does that power lie? Are we saying as an Assembly that the public should not have the right of redress when they feel that the process, the conduct, was not up to what it should be or was in fact damaging to the reputation of the service? I go to the proposition at page 6 where I note that the disciplinary code says: "Whether on or off duty officers should not behave in a way which is likely to bring discredit upon the Honorary Police." Further, at (b): "This code sets out the principles which guide officers' conduct, it does not seek to restrict their discretion; (c) The code applies to the conduct of all officers while on duty or while off duty if the conduct is serious enough to indicate that the officer is not fit to be such." So clearly it does limit it to important issues but that is what complaints would be about, or they would be dismissed at some stage. So I fear that underlying the resistance to this proposition is the belief that a police officer can do no wrong. That is the reaction I immediately get a reaction when I say that and there is a problem

here because

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

Will the Deputy give way? I just wonder could the Deputy clarify whether he is stating that he does not believe there is a mechanism at the present time for a complaint to be heard.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

The proposition is about the apparent sidelining of some complaints, that there are cases - well, he has adduced one case, maybe there are others - where a complaint is made and then it is not heard because the Parish Hall Inquiry, as I understand it - but we will hear no doubt in the summing up - is deemed by the A.G. to be a prosecution event. That is what happened in this case. The person was not complaining, as I understand it from this document, about the decision. He was complaining about the conduct over many months of certain officers. So that is how I read it. Maybe the Constable might like to comment more fully later. The way out of this confusion, I would suggest, is to add complaints about the Parish Hall Inquiry to the complaints law as the proposition suggests but to specifically exclude the decision to prosecute. Now, I guess that some will say that you cannot simply do this but I would beg to differ, I think you can and in fact the whole system of the States Police creating a bundle of evidence and then the Centenier deciding to prosecute shows that you can split the 2. I cannot see how the A.G. or indeed anyone else would object to this. So to recap, the question facing this Assembly is do we recognise that the right of complaint about the conduct of the Honorary or, indeed, the States Police is important and necessary?

13. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

If one thing was clear from the Deputy of St. Martin's speech yesterday, it was that when he prepared and lodged his proposition he did not appear to understand that the Honorary Police are indeed subject to a strict disciplinary code under the Police Complaints and Discipline Law. A problem he clearly shares with the Deputy of St. Mary following that speech. As the Deputy of St. Martin's speech went on yesterday it became obvious, to me anyway, that the penny was finally dropping. Unfortunately that does not apply to the Deputy of St. Mary. As I said, the Honorary Police are subject to the Complaints and Discipline Law, they will be called to account if they are rude or abusive at the Parish Hall , at the Parish Hall Inquiry or elsewhere. They will be called to account if they are drunk or drink while on duty at the Parish Hall , at the Parish Hall Inquiry or elsewhere. They will be called to account if they are less than impartial at the Parish Hall , at the Parish Hall Inquiry or elsewhere. They will be called to account if they publish unsubstantiated accusations on their personal blogs. If they swear at the Parish Hall , at the Parish Hall Inquiry or elsewhere in the hearing of an interested party they will be called to account. Anything you can think of that could constitute inappropriate behaviour, the Honorary Police will be called to account. But what the proposition seeks to do is to extend the disciplinary code to Parish Hall inquiries and charging procedures at the Parish Hall . Now, that has got to be wrong. Not only because charges can happen at other places, as has been explained previously, at police headquarters, at the harbour or at the airport, for example, but it is wrong because a decision to charge - and it is merely a decision - is a matter of judgment or, as the Minister for Home Affairs said a few moments ago, a matter of discretion based on evidence provided and the public interest test. It would be intolerable if making a judgment could be the subject of disciplinary action. It is the Attorney General or the court, at whatever level, who will decide whether the charge made the Centenier was appropriate, not a disciplinary panel. When you think about it, we make judgments every time we have a debate in this place. I will make a judgment in a few moments to vote against this proposition. The Deputy of St. Mary and the Deputy of St. Martin will probably make a judgment to support it. Does that mean that one of us could be the subject of a disciplinary inquiry because we have made a judgment? Absolute nonsense. Now, if I swear or I am rude, yes, that is fine, but making the judgment itself cannot be subject to a disciplinary inquiry. The proposition is

quite simply wrong and should be rejected.

14. Senator S. Syvret:

This is an extremely interesting and important subject and one I think that the Assembly is going to be addressing again and again and again in the coming months. It is plain to many people for many different reasons that frankly there are a number of significant problems with what might generally be termed the administration of justice in the Island, the prosecution function among it. It is one of those situations whereby ultimately this Assembly will decide that it has to modernise and evolve the Island's systems  in order to  keep them human rights  compliant, to  have them  subject to effective checks and balances and, indeed, to make it appear as though our system is not too archaic. If we do not do that then ultimately we run the risk of interferences that might want to do it for us. So I do think that some of the hostility exhibited towards this proposition of the Deputy of St. Martin is quite misplaced because the subject is an important one. The Attorney General tries to make some distinction, or does make a distinction, between the Police Complaints and Disciplinary Law says that it deals only with disciplinary offences committed by Honorary Officers and is not concerned with the prosecution service. Well, that may or may not be the case but the question that we have to ask is should it, in fact, be involved? Is there not an underlying assumption here on the part of the Connétable s and the Attorney General that a Centenier cannot, or an Honorary Police officer may not and could not act improperly in making a prosecution decision, either out of vindictiveness against a particular individual or the other way exhibiting favouritism to a particular individual. So it is quite easy to see, hypothetically that the decision to prosecute effectively, the prosecutory function could, in fact, be abused. I think the difference we have to address here is the difference between misfeasance and malfeasance. My understanding is that misfeasance essentially

means errors, professional areas of conduct; whereas malfeasance is somewhat stronger, it means kind of deliberate and wilful, professional negligences or abuses. I think we do have to recognise that sometimes sadly, human nature being what it is, on rare occasions people in positions of authority people can engage in malfeasances. I am a great support of the Honorary Police but we have to recognise that if the Honorary Police and the honorary system is to survive it has to evolve. It has to move with the times. It is not, frankly, credible in my view to retain one particular dimension of the aspects of the Honorary Police Force's role that remains effectively outside of any effective and ready, easily accessible check and balance other than the single power vested in the one man, the Attorney General, or ultimately the court. Because we all know in an environment that has no paid legal aid system and lawyers are massively expensive, the prospect for any ordinary person wishing to take the matter to court, to challenge these decisions, to seek judicial reviews, whatever it maybe, the prospect is wholly unrealistic. I am sorry, it will not just wash to say that these matters, if people have such a grievance, can be challenged in court. It just is not a practical or realistic prospect. In his comments the Attorney General says this in the summary, and I will quote the sentence: "The 1999 law is structured as to give relevant authority to the Attorney General as titular head of the Honorary Police and I suggest that the Attorney General should be left to decide on a case-by-case basis which are matters of competence and which are matters of conduct. If that is the conclusion then no amendment of the 1999 law is necessary." But the great difficulty with that statement is that, again, it leaves the power to make that decision, as to what is question of competence and what is a matter of conduct, in the hands of the Attorney General. A power which is, to all practical intents and purposes, not realistically challengeable. We have to ask ourselves in this day and age is such a concentration of power in the hands of one individual, without some alternative reviewing mechanism, really satisfactory in the 21st century. There has been a great deal of discussion about the importance and the sanctity of the neutrality of the system of the prosecution service in the Island and how it has to be and must be absolutely free from political kind of pressures. Of course that is structurally an impossible thing to achieve under our present arrangements. We have 12 people here, the Parish Connétable s, who are police, who have responsibility for their parish police forces, will be responsible for officers who are making decisions whether or not to prosecute. These are politicians, these are politicised police forces. So the very notion that somehow the prosecution system can be utterly divorced and regarded as utterly independent from political considerations simply is not realistic. We have the 12 heads of the Parishes' Honorary Police Forces sat in this Chamber as politicians. I am afraid assertions to the effect that the prosecution service does not have a degree of political contamination already are simply literally incredible. Nor is the Attorney General himself neutral and non political. He is a de facto and unelected politician. That is frequently the role he plays in this Assembly. If Members wish I could probably spend some time going through the archives of my collection of political speeches made by the Attorney General in this Chamber. So the notion again that this prosecution service with the Attorney General as the ultimate arbiter over all of it is free from any kind of political contamination, simply just does not stack up. It is not remotely credible. To consider that point further, let us recollect the controversy that arose when 2 Members of this Assembly, I will not bother mentioning their names but they know who they are, had a private meeting with the Attorney General and convinced him to pause and to halt the prosecution of a person known to them, a member of the public. Now, what on earth is going on there? What did

the Attorney General imagine he was doing even contemplating entertaining such an approach? But he did. It is a matter of public fact, and indeed ultimately the individual in question, notwithstanding the fact that he had, in fact, admitted the offences in question under oath in another context in court, was ultimately let off and awarded full costs. I am sorry but that is political interference with the prosecution system. Then there was another infamous example of 2 people accused of child abuse. Where it was absolutely clear, it was even accepted by the Honorary Police officer in question that the evidence to charge was present and, again, the Attorney General decided that he did not want them to be prosecuted, notwithstanding the evidence, and so they were not. They were released without charge. These are the kind of conflicts of interest, the contaminations,

that afflict the whole prosecution system in Jersey. Now, I have not doubt that the Deputy of St. Martin's proposition will be defeated today but other similar propositions are going to be brought forward, and I am glad about that and frankly I think all Members of this Assembly should be glad about it too because there are significant issues here. If we are a competent and responsible Assembly we will, of our own volition, face up to those issues and address them.

15. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

As usual I will be brief and to the point. The Honorary Police are subject to the Police Complaints and Discipline (Jersey) Law 1999 and to the Honorary Police Complaints and Disciplinary Procedure (Jersey) Regulation 2000. If a Centenier is rude to a member of the public the code of conduct for politeness and tolerance would apply or if he or she showed favouritism to an attendee over others this will fall under the code of fairness and impartiality. This relates to complaints against the Honorary Police officers conducting Parish Hall Inquiries but Centeniers also reach decisions on whether or not to prosecute at police headquarters and also at the harbours and airports customs and immigration. The same code on prosecution applies to these decisions but the provision only refers to Parish Hall Inquiries being brought within the scope of the law. People have recourse also to the Chef de Police, the Constable and the Attorney General. I will not be supporting this, I will be voting against it. I would also like to add I have never been a Centenier but in the 1970s I was a C.O. (Constable's Officer), probably booking Ford Cortinas and such like.

16. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I listened with great interest to Senator Syvret's contribution. He describes himself as a great supporter of the Honorary Police and I welcome that because I think as has been shown in this debate there is a great deal of value given to the Island by this body. Clearly, though, many of his remarks were more about his concerns about the prosecution service itself and the politicisation of the judiciary that he believes takes place rather than about the projet that is before us today. It may well be that because Clothier One has not been implemented there is a perception that the Connétable s are, in his words, contaminating the prosecution service. Certainly from my own standpoint I do not see there is any evidence that that has happened but there may be a perception out there that it can happen. Perceptions are important and clearly it has been mentioned by many Members in a number of forums recently, we do need to look again at Clothier One and think very hard about the fact that there is still no police authority and I believe we need to reopen that discussion. Several of the Senator's comments, and this, I think, is simply to some other Members who have spoken, are based on examples of how the public have been treated which regrettably are one-sided. It is very easy to argue that laws must be changed on the basis of examples that have been brought to one by members of the public. There are, of course, examples of poor policing that happened from time to time, both from the honorary side and the States side. Thankfully, though, there are far more examples of good effective policing that go on every day 24/7. I think that there is a lack of balance in some Members who have spoken. They have been affected by particular examples where they feel the system has gone wrong and it has led them to see the whole system as being in some way fatally flawed. The Deputy of St. Martin , I think, was unwise in basing most of his speech yesterday on the detailed account of this particular offence, which if that was all there was, I would agree with him, that was a dreadful thing to have happened. Indeed I have heard, in my capacity as father of the parish complaints have been brought to me by members of the parish and at first sight these sound terrible. But when one goes and asks the other people concerned, the person about which the complaint has been made, what really happened, you very often get a completely different story. So I think there is a lack of balance here and other Members have spoken about the fact that the projet does not achieve what the Deputy , or indeed what Senator Svyret, would like to see in the way we deal with prosecutions. I must say that there has been a recent example I am aware of where a particular decision made by a Centenier has been the subject of a complaint and the Attorney General very quickly has decided to review it. So it seems to me the Senator is arguing that is not enough and we should not be giving this right of reviewing decisions into that one pair of hands of the Attorney General but, again, that is a much bigger question. It is not being addressed by this proposition whether there should be a way of reviewing the decisions of Parish Hall Inquiries that goes beyond the Attorney General. Perhaps it should go beyond the Attorney General and maybe that is a discussion we should be having. I do not think it is true to say I think the word used by the Senator was hostility. Members are opposing this proposition, in some cases because it is confusing, it lacks logic; in other cases because it appears to be based on a particular example or a number of examples where a person feels they have been dealt with wrongly by the honorary system. That is not hostility, that is the States simply not wishing to approve a proposition which simply does not do the work of convincing us that we should support it. I welcome the Deputy of St. Martin 's interest in policing. I think it is important, and he has a history of bringing matters to the attention of the Assembly which I think are important, and in many cases he has made a real difference to the way we run this aspect of our government. But I think on this particular occasion I will not be able to support it.