The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
24th June 2025
Deputy Hilary Jeune
Chair, Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel States Greffe
Morier House
St. Helier
JE1 1DD
Dear Deputy Jeune ,
Re: Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202 – Review Submission
Thank you for your letter dated 19th June 2025 inviting the States of Jersey Police (SoJP) to provide comments on the Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202. These discussions are taking place against a backdrop of a busy legislative programme and increasing requests from regulators/agencies etc. to investigate matters on their behalf.
In recent months SoJP has highlighted to Government of Jersey new and proposed laws / regulations that will increase current demand set against a reducing budget e.g. changes to maritime law, regulation of Health services. It is therefore important to carefully consider the organisational, operational and financial implications to changes in law particularly given current demands and budgetary constraints.
With that in mind, I welcome the opportunity to provide the views of SoJP on the proposed changes, particularly in relation to the new statutory definition of "serious or repeated nuisance", and offer the following responses to the specific questions raised:
• In what circumstances would the States of Jersey Police expect to be involved in incidents described as "serious or repeated nuisance" under the new legislation?
It is the view of SoJP that we would not become involved in matters described as "serious or repeated nuisance" unless the behaviour in question constitutes a criminal offence - for example, malicious damage to property. In such cases, the Housing and Nuisance Team would be the appropriate lead agency. We understand that the proposed definition may lower the evidentiary threshold, but we would defer to the Minister for the Environment's interpretation on this point.
• Are incidents such as domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, property damage, hoarding, or other significant disruption currently captured as evidence under the Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law 2011 in the context of enforcement or proceedings related to nuisance or eviction?
SoJP does not routinely capture evidence specifically for the purposes of the Residential Tenancy Law. However, if evidence is obtained during the course of a criminal investigation, it may be disclosed upon request to support tenancy-related proceedings. This already occurs through civil disclosure channels.
• If so, do you anticipate that this evidentiary role would continue under the proposed definition of "serious or repeated nuisance" in the Draft Law?
As noted above, any evidentiary role SoJP plays would continue to be incidental to criminal investigations. We do not anticipate a change in this practice under the proposed definition.
• Would such events be classified as "nuisance" under your operational definitions, and do you foresee any changes to this classification should the Draft Law be passed?
SoJP does not maintain a specific operational definition of "nuisance." However, we do have standard operating procedures for dealing with noise complaints, which are investigated under the common law offence of public nuisance. We do not foresee a change in this classification should the Draft Law be passed.
• What, if any, impact do you anticipate this new definition and its accompanying enforcement mechanism might have on your operational workload or resource allocation?
We anticipate that the proposed changes could increase demand on the Housing and Nuisance Team. Given that this team does not operate on a 24/7 basis, there is a risk that out-of-hours incidents may default to police response. This could lead to an unintended increase in demand on SoJP resources. Nuisance related issues are not a matter from SoJP. It is therefore essential that a clear Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is developed by the Housing and Nuisance Team to manage expectations and responsibilities.
We also note that the current draft wording of the law appears to prioritise police officer attendance over that of other States employees. This is concerning, particularly as the Honorary Police have also raised similar issues. We are clear in our position that these matters are not primarily policing issues, and we would object to any wording that implies otherwise. We urge the Panel to consider amendments carefully to avoid placing an undue financial and operational burden on key stakeholders such as SoJP.
I trust the above provides clarity on the position of States of Jersey Police. Should the panel require any further information or wish to discuss these matters in more detail, we would be happy to engage further.
Yours sincerely
Robin Smith Chief Officer