States Minutes 12th May 1992

STATES MINUTES 1 2 t h M  a y 1 992   P ri c e : £ 2 . 0 0

T HE STATES assembled on Tuesday, 1 2th May 1992 at 9.30 a.m. under

t h e Presidency of the Bailiff ,

S i r P eter Crill, C.B.E.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,  Air Marshal Sir John Sutton, K.C.B.,

w a s p r e sent.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

All Members were present with the exception of -

S enator Reginald Robert Jeune - out of the I sland.

S enator Anne Baal - ill.

S ylvia Margaret Rose Beadle, Deputy of St. B relade - ill.

R onald Winter Blampied, Deputy of St.

H elier - ill.

H arry Hall ewell Baudains, Deputy of St.

C lement - out of the Island.

P ercy John Le Masurier, Deputy of St.

O uen - out of the Island.

P atricia Ann Bailhache , Deputy of St.

H elier - out of the Island.

M argaret Anne Le Geyt, Deputy of St.

S aviour - out of the Island.

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

P r a y e rs

_ _ _ _ _ _ ______

The Deputy Bailiff , Vernon Amy Tomes, Esquire.

His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor made a Statement in the following terms -

Mr. Bailiff ,

I t is, I believe, unprecedented - certainly

i n recent times - for the Lieutenant

G overnor to address this House other than

o n his arrival or departure. While I would m uch rather not be the person to break such a precedent, I fear it is my duty to do so

t oday.

W hile I shall need to speak at some length,

I must start with an announcement which I

r ecognise will come as a disappointment or e ven a shock to a great many people in this

I sland. Earlier today I had the unhappy

t ask of informing Mr. Tomes that Her

M ajesty The Queen has decided that he will c ease to be Deputy Bailiff of Jersey after

3 0th June this year. This decision was

p rompted by two considerations; first, the

C rown's ultimate responsibility for the

g ood government of Jersey and secondly, the U nited Kingdom's responsibility for the

i nternational relations of Jersey.

T he first of these includes responsibility

f or the satisfactory administration of

j ustice in the Island and I fear that Mr.

T omes has failed to fulfill the vital

r equirement of a judge, to deliver timely

j ustice. The second includes responsibility

f or ensuring that the Jersey authorities

c omply with the European Convention on

H uman Rights, Article 6 of which requires

t he determination of civil rights or

c riminal charges within a reasonable time.

N evertheless, I should make clear that in

r eaching this decision Her Majesty has not

o nly considered the recommendation of the

n ew Home Secretary, which was that Mr.

T omes be removed from office. The Queen has a lso been informed of the proposals, made

b y the States' delegation, that a decision

o n Mr. Tomes should be deferred for six

m onths, for the States and the Bailiff to

c onsider changes designed to ensure that

M r. Tomes did not delay his judgments. Her M ajesty has also taken full account of the

p etition which I forwarded to Buckingham

P alace early last month. It will be evident

f rom the announcement that Mr. Tomes will

c ease to be Deputy Bailiff that Her Majesty

h as been unable to accede to the prayer of

t hat petition and earlier today I advised

M r. Filleul, who delivered the petition to

m e, of that decision. You will understand

t hat, until Her Majesty's decisions were

m ade known, the outcome remained uncertain.

A s I said, I recognise that this news will

c ome as a shock to many. It will come as a s hock not just because of the high regard

i n which Mr. Tomes is held but also, I am a fraid, because the information made

a vailable to most people on the Island up

t ill now has not given the whole story. I

h ave been uncomfortably aware of this but t here was no alternative that would have

b een fair to Mr. Tomes. Had he taken the

o ption to retire or had the proposal by the S tates' delegation been acceptable, then

t here would have been no need to recite in p ublic the details of his shortcomings.

B ut, in view of the widespread speculation a nd inaccurate rumours, it is now

u nfortunately necessary to give these

d etails and it will be a surprise to some,

I know, to learn just how serious the

q uestion of delayed judgments had become a nd how long it had been going on.

O ver the last few weeks we have all seen or

h eard comments or claims that Mr. Tomes was a victim of a conspiracy by the Jersey

e stablishment because he did not have the

r ight background; that he had been

u nreasonably overburdened with work; and

t hat he had not been given a proper

o pportunity to recover his backlog of

j udgments; that there had been a lack of

p roper consultation before serious steps

w ere contemplated; and especially that the

H ome Office was interfering in what was

r ightfully the business of the States of

J ersey. I have to tell you now that not one

o f these points has any firm foundation.

H ad there been any conspiracy, neither my

p redecessor - for it all started during his

t ime - nor I would have had any part of it

a nd we would have stopped any such move in i ts tracks. It is, after all, to provide

t hat sort of safeguard that Lieutenant

G overnors are appointed on Her Majesty's

b ehalf. As regards Mr. Tomes' background,

t hat has certainly not been an issue but

h ad it been, since I, too, won a

s cholarship to a grammar school and was

c onscripted into the RAF as an

a ircraftsman - and you can't start lower

t han that - perhaps you might consider for

a moment where my sympathies would

n aturally lie.

T he issue has been solely that of delayed

j udgments. It has not - as some have come

t o believe - been over the odd delayed

j udgment but over a pattern of delay which

b egan shortly after Mr. Tomes was appointed D eputy Bailiff in 1986 and which has

c ontinued over the years ever since. It has

c ontinued in spite of many efforts here in

J ersey and the attempts later by successive

H ome Secretaries to try to persuade Mr.

T omes to recover his backlog of judgments

a nd to incur no further delays.

I think it is desirable now to put on

r ecord the steps which have been taken to e liminate those delays since they first

b ecame apparent.

T he Bailiff was made aware of arrears in

t he delivery of Mr. Tomes' written

j udgments in February 1988. It is more

a ppropriate that the Bailiff himself tells

y ou in detail the measures he then took,

l eading up to the report to the Home

S ecretary in 1990. But in short, for some

2 0 months from late 1988 the Bailiff

a rranged for Mr. Tomes to be relieved of

a ny new, long and potentially difficult

c ases. The Bailiff , with Commissioners,

t ook on the additional work. So it is not

t rue to say, that at that time or any

o ther, having incurred a backlog, Mr. Tomes was given insufficient opportunity to

r ecover it. But despite the relief arranged

b y the Bailiff , Mr. Tomes failed to clear

h is backlog. And his delays were the

s ubject of complaints by those waiting for

j udgments, of threats or pleas by advocates

o n their behalf, of criticisms by the Law

S ociety and the Court of Appeal, and even

o f threats to sue.

E ventually, because Mr. Tomes was still in a rrears in spite of the measures taken, in

F ebruary 1990 the Bailiff formally referred

t he matter to my predecessor, recommending t hat Mr. Tomes be invited to retire. It was

e ntirely right and proper for the Bailiff

t o do so, since he - not the States - is

r esponsible in Jersey for the efficient

a dministration of justice. But, as he will

e xplain later, the Bailiff took this action

o nly after extensive informal consultation

h ere. His recommendation was sent on to the H ome Office. This, too, was entirely

c orrect. What was in question was the

e fficient administration of justice, which

i s fundamental to good government. The

C rown in Council is ultimately responsible

f or the good government of Jersey. And the H ome Secretary is the Privy Counsellor with s pecial responsibility for the Bailiwick.

A s the Bailiff will explain more fully,

a ppointment to the office of Deputy

B ailiff, and if necessary removal from it,

i s by the Crown, on the advice of the Home S ecretary, by letters patent from Her

M ajesty; and it is by virtue of that

a ppointment that the Deputy Bailiff is a

j udge of the Royal Court. Comments that the H ome Secretary, or Home Office officials on h is behalf, have interfered in an Island

m atter are, therefore, wholly without

f oundation.

I n the summer of 1990, with the agreement

o f the then Home Secretary, Home Office

o fficials informally consulted a wide

s election of responsible people here,

i ncluding some Jurats and several Members

o f this House about the Bailiff 's

r ecommendation. Opinion was divided on Mr. T omes' overall suitability to continue as

D eputy Bailiff . But there was a clear

c onsensus both that he should not continue

i f his arrears of written judgments were

n ot eliminated and that he should be given

a chance to clear those arrears.

F ollowing these soundings, the then Home S ecretary decided that Mr. Tomes should be a llowed to continue in office, but tied to

a commitment to get up to date. In August 1 990, when Mr. Tomes had still to complete t hree cases in which written judgment had

b een outstanding for at least two and a

h alf years, he was seen by the then Home

S ecretary Mr. (now Lord) Waddington, who r equired and received from Mr. Tomes an

u ndertaking that he would clear his backlog w ithin six months.

I n early September 1990, shortly after he

h ad returned from seeing the Home

S ecretary, I went to see Mr. Tomes in his

o ffice. I stressed that it was vital that

h e set proper priorities in his work and

b etween his work and his many other

a ctivities. I urged him to plan ahead his

p rogramme of work and if it seemed that he w as overburdened he should say so at the

o utset while there was time to do something

a bout it. Finally, I stressed that if he

h ad difficulties he could always come and s ee me. He thanked me and assured me that h e would get up to date. I heard nothing

m ore until the end of the six month period,

o n 1st March 1991, when I was shocked to l earn that Mr. Tomes had failed in his

u ndertaking; the three cases outstanding in A ugust 1990 had still not been completed; a nd a further three cases, of at least

n early five months' duration, were also

o utstanding.

M r. Tomes had given to warning in advance

o f these failures, which of necessity were

n otified to the then Home Secretary, Mr.

B aker. Mr. Baker decided that Mr. Tomes

s hould be allowed to explain why he should

n ot be removed from office. During the

f ollowing months Mr. Tomes' reasons for not h aving fulfilled the undertaking he had

g iven to Mr. Waddington in August 1990 were c arefully examined, including at a meeting

i n July 1991 between Mr. Tomes and Sir

C live Whitmore, the Permanent Under

S ecretary of State. It was confirmed to Mr.

T omes that the question of his departure

f rom office arose only as a result of his

p erformances of his judicial functions and

n ot his other duties as Deputy Bailiff .

T he then Home Secretary concluded that Mr. T omes' representations, including claims of

o verwork, were not themselves arguments to e xcuse his delays. But having consulted the B ailiff and me, and in the belief that Mr.

T omes now appreciated the seriousness of

h is delays and was determined to correct

t hem, Mr. Baker decided that Mr. Tomes

s hould be given another chance, but this

t ime subject to clear, written conditions.

I will not repeat those conditions here,

b ecause they have already received wide

p ublicity within the Island. Suffice to say

t hat last October, following another

m eeting with Sir Clive Whitmore, Mr. Tomes a ccepted those conditions immediately, in

w riting, and without reservation. Sir Clive

W hitmore's letter recording those

c onditions made clear that the excuses for

h is previous failures which Mr. Tomes had

p ut forward could not in themselves be

a ccepted. Mr. Tomes therefore understood

t hat the quality of his judgments when

f inally delivered, and claims of overwork

w hen what was involved were simply the

n ormal duties of his office, could not

e xcuse delay in completing cases and so in d elivering justice.

T his brings me to the general point of

w orkload. In spite of all claims to the

c ontrary, the most thorough investigations

h ave shown that Mr. Tomes' responsibilities a re not too onerous. His primary duties -

c ertainly 90 per cent of his work - are as

a judge. And he has most usually, over a

n umber of years, sat on fewer days than

t hat would entail. When Mr. Tomes accepted t he conditions, the Home Office were able

t o reply to a number of testimonials which

t hey had received on Mr. Tomes' behalf,

s ome from Members of the States, and which t he Home Secretary had taken into account.

I t was clear that many of the writers had

n ot really understood the long history of

M r. Tomes' delays. But the replies, written w ith Mr. Tomes' agreement, were as

c onsiderate of his position in Jersey as

t hey could be, whilst explaining the true

p osition.

L ast October, Mr. Tomes had a backlog of s ix cases, the delays ranging between three m onths and just over a year. In accepting

t he Home Secretary's conditions he

u nderstood that, by 31st January 1992, he w ould be expected to clear his backlog. He a lso accepted and understood that failure w ould immediately constitute grounds for t he Home Secretary to consider requiring h is departure from office.

I again saw Mr. Tomes and stressed that

t his really was his last chance and it was

v ital that his backlog of judgments was

f ully recovered by the deadline he had been

g iven. He assured me that there would be no

f urther difficulties. I heard no more until

e arly February this year when the deadline

h ad passed and I was devastated - I can put

i t no less - to learn that two judgments,

o ne dating from November 1990 and the other f rom May 1991, had still not been

c ompleted, and, I gather, even now have not b een completed.

M r. Tomes, in a letter to Sir Clive

W hitmore, claimed that exceptional

c ircumstances had prevented him from g etting up to date. In essence he claimed t hat the fact that he had been obliged to s it on one lengthy case from November

c onstituted exceptional circumstances. The t hen Home Secretary decided that this claim c ould not be accepted. The short reason was t hat, if Mr. Tomes had not sat on that one

c ase, he would have sat on others for much t he same number of days in the relevant

p eriod. The then Home Secretary therefore f elt obliged to decide that Mr. Tomes must c ease to be Deputy Bailiff . The principal

f unction of that office is as a judge. And

M r. Tomes left the Home Secretary with no c onfidence that, in that capacity, he could

p roperly be relied upon to discharge the

v ital requirement to deliver timely

j ustice.

E very assurance that Mr. Tomes had given,

o ver a number of years, to remedy delay and a void it, had proved hollow and

u nfulfilled. The then Home Secretary

r eached his decisions in consultation with

m e and the Bailiff and, in view of all the

b ackground, with our agreement. The

d ecisions were, as you know, conveyed to M r. Tomes on 18th March; and you are all

f amiliar with developments since then.

I have not attempted to explain in any

d etail the rôle of the Bailiff , as

P resident of the Royal Court, in these

m atters. In a few moments he will explain

t hat himself. He will also explain in more

d etail the constitutional relationship

b etween Jersey and the United Kingdom and t he Home Secretary's responsibility, as a

P rivy Counsellor, to advise Her Majesty on t he appointment of Crown Officers.

I have not looked forward to making this

s tatement today and, as Mr. Tomes knows, I h ad hoped I would not have to do so. But it

i s my duty to do so in order that the

M embers of this House and the people of

J ersey too are made aware of the full

s equence of events which has led to the

d ecision that Mr. Tomes should cease to be D eputy Bailiff . The decision has been taken b y Her Majesty on the advice of Mr. Kenneth C larke, who is the third Home Secretary to

r eview Mr. Tomes' performance and to

c onsider all aspects of this unhappy case.

O n a personal note, I am very sorry indeed t hat it has come to this. I am well aware

o f the contribution Mr. Tomes has made to

t his Island over the years, how helpful and

a pproachable he can be and how highly he is r egarded. I had hoped - indeed from what I h ave said you will see that I had every

r eason to believe - that he would resolve

t he problem of outstanding judgments. It is

t ragic that he has not done so.''

The Bailiff made a Statement in the following terms -

  I too am sorry that the events of the

 l ast few years in regard to Mr. Tomes have

 l ed to today's unhappy conclusion. That

 t here had been a friendship between us over

m any years is obvious from the fact that

M r. Tomes and I were in private practice

 t ogether. And ironic as it may seem now, it

 w as my support which secured his nomination  a s Deputy Bailiff , when his succession to

 t hat office was by no means assured. It is

 u nfortunate and painful for me now that, in

m y capacity as Bailiff , I have been obliged

 t o take measures which, in the end, have

 l ed to Mr. Tomes' removal from the office

o f Deputy Bailiff .

L et me begin, as President of this House by i nforming Members of the Home Secretary's r esponse to the request by the delegation

w hich met Sir Clive Whitmore on 2nd April 1 992 that a decision on Mr. Tomes' future

b e deferred for six months, for the States,

w ith me, to consider changes designed to

e nsure that Mr. Tomes did not delay his

j udgments. It will already be evident from

t oday's events that the Home Secretary

c ould not accede to that request but it is

m y formal duty to inform you of the

c ontents of the letter which I received

l ast night notifying me, through the

L ieutenant Governor, of that decision. The

l etter reads -

T h e purpose of this letter is to

i n v ite you to convey to the States the

d e c ision of The Queen on the advice of t h e Home Secretary that the Deputy

B a i liff, Mr. Vernon Tomes, should not c o n tinue in office. I have written

s im  ultaneously to Mr. Tomes to inform h i m of the decision.

Y  o u will recall that the resolution of

t h e States which appointed the

d e le gation which I received on the then

H  o me Secretary's behalf on 2nd April

r e q uested that The Queen be not advised t o d ismiss the Deputy Bailiff . The

d e le gation itself proposed that the

d e c ision be deferred for six months

d u r ing which time the States and the

B a i liff would consider whether changes c o u ld be made in the arrangements for

t h e administration of justice in Jersey

t o e nsure the prompt delivery of

j u st ice by the Deputy Bailiff . I

r e p orted the delegation's

r e p resentations to the Home Secretary w  h o decided that the matter should be

l o o ked at afresh after the election.

T h e present Home Secretary has now

c a re fully considered the points put

f o rw ard on the States' behalf. He has

a l so reviewed the information available t o h is predecessor and has consulted

b o t h you and the Lieutenant Governor. H e understands the concern of the

S t a tes and has taken account also of

t h e consideration due to Mr. Tomes in r e sp ect of his past services.

T h e principal points advanced by the

d e le gation on 2nd April were that the

j u d icial duties of the Deputy Bailiff

w  er e too onerous and that he should be

r e li eved of his duties so as to catch

u p with outstanding cases. Appreciating t h e spirit in which these points were

m ade but proceeding from the fact that

r e sp onsibility for ensuring the proper

f u n ctioning of the Island's judicial

s y s tem is one for the Crown alone, the H  o me Secretary has concluded that

n e it her point identifies grounds for

d e f erring decision. As to the first

p o i nt, in your capacity as President of

t h e Royal Court you have advised that

t h e Deputy Bailiff 's workload is not

u n r easonable. As to the second point,

th e Home Secretary has noted that when a c ti ng as President of the Royal Court,

y o u had over a period of 20 months

l ig h tened Mr. Tomes' workload, he had f a il ed to clear his backlog and deliver

t im  ely judgments. Mr. Tomes in addition t w i ce gave undertakings to successive

H  o me Secretaries that he would do so

a n d failed despite the clearest

p o s sible warning of the consequences on t h e second occasion which he

a c k nowledged in writing. Nothing in Mr. T o m es' past behaviour gives grounds

t h er efore for expecting that further

l ig h tening or deferment is likely to

p r o duce acceptable improvement. Granted t h e Crown's ultimate responsibility for

t h e good government of the Island, the

H  o me Secretary concluded that

o v e rriding priority had to be given to

t h e fundamental requirement that

j u st ice be not unreasonably delayed. It

f o ll owed that he had to advise The

Q  u een to remove Mr. Tomes because the l a tt er had forfeited his confidence

t h at he was capable of discharging all

t h e proper duties of his office.

A  t the same time, the Home Secretary

h a s expressly requested me to emphasise t h at he attaches great importance to

t h e maintenance of a healthy

r e la tionship between the Island and the C r o wn. He has acted as he has on the

b a s is of the current balance of

r e sp onsibilities. Insofar as the

p r e sent events have given rise to the

v i ew - especially among Members of the S t a tes - that changes in that balance

n e e d to be contemplated, he will be

p r e pared to have any specific proposals c o n sidered if on further consideration

t h e States would wish to make any such p r o posals.'

A s His Excellency has said I now set out

t he sequences of events which led me in the end to refer the matter to the Home

S ecretary, through the Lieutenant Governor

o f the day and to recommend that Mr. Tomes b e asked to resign.

M r. Tomes' arrears began shortly after he

t ook up his appointment as Deputy Bailiff .

A t the beginning of 1988, when Mr. Tomes h ad been in post for two years, I first

b ecame aware of delays but not of the

e xtent of them and asked my secretary to

s ee that as far as possible Mr. Tomes'

w orkload was lightened. In the summer of

t hat year I began to receive complaints and

I appointed Mr. Francis Hamon as an

a dditional Commissioner to allow Mr. Tomes m ore time to catch up. At that time Mr.

T omes said he would be able to do so in two t o three months. But by the end of November 1 988 the number of outstanding judgments h ad increased to 12 and one advocate had

t hreatened to sue the court. With the

J urats' agreement I then took Mr. Tomes off a ny new contentious cases to allow him even m ore time to catch up. This meant that,

a part from emergency cases, Mr. Tomes was n ot required to sit in court except for the

n ormal Friday Court, a few States' Sittings

a nd to cover illnesses and holidays. The

c ases which he would otherwise have heard w ere dealt with by the Commissioners or

m yself.

B y April 1989 Mr. Tomes had still not

c aught up and the Jersey Law Society then

c omplained shortly afterwards about the

d elays to Sir Godfray Le Quesne's

C ommittee. I was becoming increasingly

c oncerned at these delays and I asked Mr.

T omes for a programme of dates by which he e xpected to be able to complete the various

j udgments. In his reply he offered to take

e arly retirement, although he later

w ithdrew this offer. By February 1990 Mr.

T omes had still not recovered his backlog

i n spite of having been relieved of the

m ajority of his court work for the previous

1 5 months. As it became clear that whatever m easures I took had little effect I

r ecommended to the then Lieutenant Governor t hat Mr. Tomes be invited to take early

r etirement. But before doing so I consulted

1 5 people - including members of the

j udiciary, the legal profession and four

s enior Members of this House. All agreed

t hat I had no option but to make the

r ecommendation I did.

S o much for steps taken here in Jersey

b efore the matter was referred to the Home S ecretary in 1990. The Lieutenant Governor h as outlined the subsequent events and the a ctions of the Home Secretaries of the day a nd their officials. Let me make it clear

t hat I have been consulted by and I have

o ffered advice to the Home Office at every s tage of these events. Primarily this has

b een in my capacity as President of the

R oyal Court for it is I - and not Members

o f this House - who carry responsibility to

t he Crown for the efficient administration

o f justice in Jersey. The assurance of the

p roper administration of justice, together

w ith fair and stable political institutions

i s the very basis of a free and democratic

s ociety. Secondly, the existence and

m aintenance of a proper system for the

a dministration of justice is one of the

f eatures of our life and society which has

m ade Jersey attractive as a centre for

f inance activities. If we allow our

s tandards in the administration of justice

t o fall, the consequences for the

c ontinuing prosperity of the Island could

b e very serious indeed and our reputation

f or justice suffers if there is a belief

a bout that difficult financial cases might

t ake years rather than months to dispose

o f. For example, already one Member of this H ouse has had adverse comments from a

b usinessman in the Far East expressing

c oncern at the slowness of some judgments i n Jersey. Two qualities are necessary to

e stablish a satisfactory system of justice.

F irst, the law should be certain or at

l east ascertainable. Second, it must be

a scertainable reasonably promptly.

W hat I find surprising in the various

c omments and coverage of this affair over

r ecent weeks is that there has not been one

w ord about the hardship which has had to be e ndured by those who have been obliged to w ait for so long to be told the outcome of

t heir court cases. Just getting a case to

c ourt is a harrowing enough experience for m ost people but then having to wait for a

l ong time - in many cases for more than a

y ear - to learn the outcome can only add

c onsiderably to worry and stress. As you

h ave heard, one of the litigants threatened

t o sue. But as those waiting for judgments

f ound, there was nothing they could do.

T hey could not appeal, they could not sue

a nd they have no right of compensation for

l ost opportunities, inconvenience or the

e ffect on health caused by the worry of

u ncertainty. To them the phrase justice

d elayed is justice denied' was very real

a nd any claim that a judgment may have been a model of clarity when it eventually

a rrived was little consolation.

F inally, as the Lieutenant Governor

m entioned, I should explain to you the

e xisting constitutional relationship

b etween Jersey and the United Kingdom.

J ersey is a dependency of the Crown, not an i ndependent sovereign state. As well as

r esponsibility for the defence and

i nternational relations of Jersey, the

C rown has ultimate responsibility for the

g ood government of the Island. One aspect

o f good government is clearly the

a dministration of justice. Furthermore, the d etermination of civil rights and criminal

c harges within a reasonable time is a right

o f each individual in Jersey by virtue of

t he European Convention on Human Rights, A rticle 6. That Convention has been

r atified with the agreement of Jersey by

t he United Kingdom Government, which is r esponsible for ensuring that the insular

a uthorities comply with its provisions.

T he Crown is therefore under a duty to take m easures to eliminate the delay in delivery

o f judgments which has regularly occurred. T he Crown is also responsible for the

a ppointment of Crown Officers, of whom the D eputy Bailiff is one, and may terminate

t hose appointments where necessary. Such

d ecisions as to appointment and dismissal

o f a Crown Officer are taken on the advice

o f the Home Secretary as Privy Counsellor

r esponsible for Channel Island affairs. The

c onstitution requires no formal

c onsultation with the States of Jersey

b efore such decisions are taken. However,

t he position endorsed by the Royal

C ommission on the Constitution in 1973 is

t hat consultation takes place in the Island

b efore any Crown appointment is made. It

h as been suggested that similar

c onsultations should take place before a

C rown appointee is removed. Whilst as a

g eneral principle that proposition may have s ome merit there are a number of reasons

w hy widespread consultation in the Island

i n Mr. Tomes' case would not have been

a ppropriate.

P rimarily, as I have already stated, the

C rown was under a duty to put right the

u nfortunate situation of a failure in the

a dministration of justice; the fact that

t he only possible remedy, after all other

e fforts had failed, was the dismissal of a

C rown Officer could not require the full

p rocedures suitable to the appointment of a C rown Officer to be invoked. This was

b ecause the issue was not the fittedness of a particular individual for the post of

D eputy Bailiff , but the restoration of a

p roper system of justice at the earliest

o pportunity.

N evertheless, the Home Office, before

g iving advice to the Crown on the matter of d ismissal of Mr. Tomes, did properly and at e very stage, consult the Lieutenant

G overnor and me. Indeed, it was I who

o riginally reported the problem to the Home O ffice via the Lieutenant Governor. You may r est assured that our advice was taken into

a ccount in the decision to set in motion

t he series of steps which led sadly to the

d ecision of Her Majesty that the

a ppointment of Mr. Tomes as Deputy Bailiff m ust be brought to an end.

I n addition, as the Lieutenant Governor has

e xplained, in 1990 Home Office officials

t ook extensive, informal soundings here;

a nd the consensus among those consulted was t hat Mr. Tomes should be given the

o pportunity to clear his arrears of written

j udgments, but not continue if he failed to

d o so. That advice was acted upon, with Mr. T omes' interview with the then Home

S ecretary. The informal consultation

n ormally consistent with decisions about

C rown appointments was therefore undertaken p roperly at the correct point, and was not

a ppropriate or necessary thereafter, as at

e ach later stage Mr. Tomes failed to meet

u ndertakings to successive Home

S ecretaries.

T here is one other point for me to add.

S ome of the criticisms of the action taken

i n Mr. Tomes' case have widened into

e xpressions of dissatisfaction with some

a spects of the constitutional relationship

b etween the Island and the United Kingdom.

I t may be that those expressions will be

r econsidered now that those who made them

h ave the opportunity properly to understand

w hat has in fact been done and why. But the

S tates have, of course, a perfect right to

c onsider at any time whether they wish to

p ropose to Her Majesty's Government changes i n the relationship; and the letter

c onveying the decision of the Home

S ecretary which I have read out confirms

h is willingness to have such proposals

c onsidered. We should, however, all bear in m ind that some of the suggestions for

c hange which have been made would have far r eaching, unsettling and potentially

s erious implications for our relationship

w ith the Crown.''

Subordinate legislation tabled

The following enactments were laid before the States, namely -

 1 .  Social Security (Transitional

P r o visions) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) O  rd er 1992 R & O 8380.

 2 .  Road Traffic (Saint Lawrence)

( A m endment No. 3) (Jersey) Order 1992 R

&   O 8381.

 3 .  Road Traffic (Saint Peter) (Amendment) ( J er sey) Order 1992 R & O 8382.

Island Development Committee - appointment of member

THE STATES appointed Henry George Coutanche, Deputy of St. Lawrence as a member of the Island Development Committee.

Information Technology R.C. 17/92

The Establishment Committee by Act dated 28th April 1992, presented to the States its report

on Information Technology in the Public Service.

THE STATES ordered that the said report be printed and distributed.

Matters noted - land transactions

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 1st May 1992, showing that in pursuance of Standing Orders relating to certain transactions in land, the Committee had approved -

( a) as recommended by the Public Health C o m mittee, the extension of the lease

f ro m Mr. George Bernardes of the four- b e d room property Alzola, Upper King's C l i ff, St. Helier, from 1st March 1992, s u b ject to three months' notice given

b y either side, at an annual rent of

£1 0 ,764;

C o m mittee, the extension of the lease

f ro m Mr. Timothy Allbut and Mrs. Paula A ll but née Jouault, of the three-

b e d roomed property No.3 Les Buttes, La G  ra nde Route de St. Martin , St. Martin, f o r a period of three months from 7th

O  ct ober to 31st December 1992, at the

e x isting annual rent of £8,400;

 ( c) as recommended by the Public Health

C o m mittee the renewal of the lease from F . L e Sueur and Son Limited of the one- b e d roomed flats, Nos. 2 and 8 Roseland C o u rt, St. Aubin's Road, St. Helier,

f o r a period of one year from 1st April

1 9 9 2, at an annual rent of £4,160 for

e a c h unit;

 ( d) as recommended by the Public Health

C o m mittee, the renewal of the lease

f ro m F. Le Sueur and Son Limited of the

o n e -bedroomed flat No. 6 Roseland

C o u rt, St. Aubin's Road, St. Helier,

f o r a period of six months from 1st

A p ril 1992 at a rent of £80 a week;

 ( e) as recommended by the Public Health

C o m mittee the renewal of the lease from M r s. Joan Annie Perrée née Swift, of

t h e two-bedroomed property Flat 3, 73

R o u ge Bouillon, St. Helier , for a

p e r iod of one year from 1st April 1992

w  it h an option to renew for a further

y e a r at an annual rent of £5,720;

 ( f) as recommended by the Public Health

C o m mittee, the lease from Mrs. Ruth

M  a ry Morris née Le Brocq, of the three- b e d roomed terraced house 31 West Park A  v enue, St. Helier, for a period of

t h re e years from 1st May 1992 with an

o p t ion to renew for a further two

y e a rs, at an annual rent of £7,800,

s u b ject to annual cost of living

i n cr eases;

( g) as recommended by the Public Health C o m mittee, the lease from Mr. Robert G eo rge Day of the four-bedroomed

p r o perty The Dower House, Clos des

A  rb res, La Rue de la Retraite, St.

S a v iour, for a period of one year from 1 s t April 1992 at an annual rent of

£1 3 ,000;

C o m mittee, the assignment of the lease

f ro m Mrs. Carolyn Jane Walsh née Mills

o f t he two-bedroomed property

B a r achois, La Grande Route de St. Jean, S t . Helier (owned by Mrs. Kathleen Luce n é e Le Marquand), from 5th April 1992 t o 3 1st March 1994 at an annual rent of

£8 , 397.84, subject to a review on 4th

A  p ril 1993 in line with the Jersey Cost

o f L iving index.

Matter noted - financial transaction

THE STATES noted an Act of the Finance and Economics Committee dated 1st May 1991, showing that in pursuance of Rule 5 of the Public

Finances (General) (Jersey) Rules 1967, as amended, the Committee had noted that the Public Health Committee had accepted the lowest of six tenders, namely that submitted by R.J. Wilkinson Limited, in the sum of £576,695 for an extension

to the Pathology Department at the General Hospital.

Matters lodged

The following subjects were lodged au Greffe'' -

 1 .  Denis Ryan Court, David Place, S t . Helier: development. P.63/92 P r e sented by the Housing

C o m mittee.

 2 .  Draft Agricultural Land (Control

o f S ales and Leases) (Amendment No. 3)

( J er sey) Law 199 . P.64/92.

P r e sented by the Agriculture and

F i s heries Committee.

 3 .  Green Zone sites: agricultural b u i ldings. P.65/92.

P r e sented by the Island

D  ev elopment Committee.

 4 .  Field 951, St. Brelade:

t e m porary accommodation. P.66/92. P r e sented by Senator J.S.

R o t hwell

 5 .  Springfield, St. Helier :

r e zo ning of land. P.67/92.

P r e sented by the Sport, Leisure a n d Recreation Committee

 6 .  Public entertainment:

r e sp onsibility for content. P.68/92. P r e sented by Deputy S. Syvret of S t . Helier.