Working relationship between the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police

1240/5(2025)

QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY 9th DECEMBER 2003, BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN

Question

With reference to answers given by the President on 2nd December 2003, regarding the working relationship between the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police, would the President inform members –

1. w h ether muchof the uncertaintyandmisunderstanding would be alleviated if the Jersey PoliceAuthority was functioning in line with that whichwas approved by the States inMay 1998?
2. w h y the Jersey Police Authority is not functioning and what steps have beentakentoappoint a chairman and full membership?
3. w h ether the Committeeisminded to re-establish the Police Authority, and, if not, whether it is intended that the proposed MemorandumofUnderstanding will replace it? If theMemorandumofUnderstanding is not intended to replace the PoliceAuthority would the President inform membersofwhatplansarein hand toensure that thereis a frameworkofaccountabilitywhich is not only acceptable to membersof both theStatesandHonorary Police officers but alsoto the membersof the public? and,
4. w h ether the proposedMemorandumofUnderstanding will allow for theappointmentofan Honorary Police Chief torepresentthe interests of the Honorary Police?

Answer

1. A s the preamble to the question implies, thequestionposedonthe2ndDecember 2003, concerned working relationships. It is doubtful, therefore, whether a policy-makingbody,be that a police authority or anyother,would alleviate uncertainty ormisunderstandinginworking relationships if these concerns existed.
2. W hen I answered a similar question from the Deputy of St. Martinin March 2003, I informed members that the Committeewouldbe bringing a reporttotheStates outlining proposals for the way forward.On the 22nd July 2003, theCommittee presented R.C.35/2003 entitled JerseyPolice Authority: Review', with an invitation tomembers to commenton the optionsoutlined in that paper.TheCommitteereceived one or two informal commentson that occasion.As this coincided with thesummer break, I sent a personal letter toallmemberson the 26thAugust2003,requestingcommentson the options given.The Deputy of St.Martin sent me a brief e-mailresponseon the 1st September2003, but, other than oneother supportive e-mail, I havenothadsubstantive replies from othermembers. Clearly, stepswerenottakento appoint a chairmanand full membershipwhile this consultation took place.
3. T h ere is no intention to replace the Police Authority with a memorandumof understanding. When the Home Affairs Committee met with the Comité des Connétable s on the 1st December 2003, their views were soughton the options outlined in R.C. 35/2003. The Committee will alsobeseeking the viewsof H.M. Attorney General, the Centeniers' Association and the Vingteniers' and Constables Officers' Association. Following this, theCommittee will bring a report and proposition tothe States which will take accountoftheviewsexpressed by both the HonoraryPoliceand the States of Jersey Police.
4. A s there is no intention to replace the Police Authoritywith a memorandum of understanding, this question falls away.However,theHome Affairs Committeewould agree with a single person as the conduit for all communicationon Honorary Policematters,but this is a matter forthe Connétable s and not the Home Affairs Committee.