Wednesday, July 17, 2013

THE STATES OF JERSEY WAKE UP JUST IN TIME.

SENATOR BAILHACHE - DEFEATED




"DEFEATED"



"SIR, PHILIP BAILHACHE DEFEATED"



"THE FOG CLEARS AND THE STATES WAKE UP"



"21 STILL IN A TRANCE"



The whole  'Electoral Reform' was something really credible thanks to the former Deputy of St Mary. Then Philip Bailhache got elected and the rest as they say is history.

Have the majority of States Members finally sussed Sir Philip out? Has the meteorite finally broken into Jersey's orbit? Questions, so many questions. I applaud the 28 who stood up and said NO.

THEY - THE ELITE - WANT TO RUN JERSEY AS A BUSINESS - THIS STARTS WITH REDUCING THE STATES TO 42. 

ZERO  SCRUTINY - ZERO QUESTIONS - LEGISLATION PASSED WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS OR OPPOSITION.

 THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED - THEY FAILED.


Lets just cut straight to the chase here. 


The three options passed in the states and given to the public of jersey were complete garbage. 


If you bake a cake and the inside is rotten, it will remain rotten. No matter how many decorations or layers of icing you add to it - it will remain rotten. This is what happened to the hijacked referendum chaired by Sir Philip Bailhache.  This was one of the bravest decisions made in the states for a very long time. I'm happy for things to remain as they are for the time being. The number 42 was the elephant in the room not the role of the Constables. 


Senator Bailhache has failed with Plémont - failed with becoming Chief Minister - failed with the hijacked electoral commission - failed with complete memory loss as to what documents he was reading on a plane (would make a great Foreign Affairs Minister) failed with the  Committee of Enquiry into decades long Child Abuse being kicked into the long grass. The man is suffering more defeats than he probably wishes to talk about. Has he been sussed out? He is an out of touch dinosaur.  


They can spin all they like.


Senator Gorst - Senator Ozouf - Deputy Power  and the rest of the 21 clowns can you hear me??? I SAID CAN YOU HEAR ME

YOUR MAN TOOK ONE HELL OF A BEATING


REMEMBER THE 21 CLOWNS- JERSEY BREATHES AGAIN.


This is what I said on my blog posting of March 16th 2013:

REFORMING THE STATES OF JERSEY - AND THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF JERSEY


IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - A CROCK OF STINKING DOG POO

"IF 3 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER - WHAT IS 42???"

THE DOG IS CHASING HIS TAIL.

Would you, the Jersey public, willingly set sail in a boat with a dodgy hull? The answer would have to be a resounding "NO." So why does the States of Jersey and its Electoral Commission  believe it's ok to force you to do just that? There comes a time when you really have to call it how you see it. It really is a "Crock of stinking dog poo." 

Having re-read the whole debate again on Hansard i'm shocked and surprised that this referendum was even passed in the states. Again, this highlights the complete follie that is the States of Jersey. Something that is quite clearly not fit for purpose is given to the Jersey public. The people who have formed groups to champion their chosen preference are running blind. They have been so eager to get going and campaigning that they have taken their eyes of the sheer madness of it all. 

These are the 3 options.

Reform Option A: Parish Constables will no longer be members of the States There will be 42 States members known as Deputies. There will be six large districts, each choosing seven Deputies.

Reform Option B: Parish Constables will continue to be members of the States There will be 42 States members: 30 Deputies and 12 parish Constables There will be six large districts, each choosing five Deputies.

Reform Option C: The current system will remain. There will be 49 States members from 2014: eight Senators elected island-wide, 29 Deputies elected in constituencies and 12 parish Constables.

How will I vote on the 24th April 2013. At this present moment I will be writing "NONE OF THE ABOVE" across my paper. I simply don't like any of the options. If I had to push myself I would go for A as I would like to see the Constables removed from the states. Now here is my problem. Both options A and B operate with 42 members. I don't believe the States can operate with 42 members and nor have I seen or read anything that can assure me it can. We are going into this Blind.  I don't want to spoil my paper and don't take this decision lightly. I simply refuse to compromise my position by taking a decision that I could seriously regret further down the line. The states does need reforming. Option C is a simple No for me. 



Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 

Sunday, July 14, 2013

P96/2006 PART 2 -PROTECTING THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE











P96/2006 - PROTECTING THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE - PART 2



DEPUTY HIGGINS RAISES THE ISSSUE WITH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL DURING QUESTION. TIME IN THE STATES OF JERSEY



YOU CAN READ THE ORIGINAL DEBATE FROM 2006 ON MY LAST POSTING.






Here are some key issues from my last posting. 


"Law Society president,Timothy Hanson, has today come out publicly about why allegations of professional misconduct by a lawyer employed by the States have been dropped. This is because the above legislation was passed in the States of Jersey. The Law Society, which is the governing body of lawyers who practise as Jersey advocates and solicitors, was unable to refer the complaint to a disciplinary committee because, under current legislation Law Officers are not required to join the society. Private practise lawyers can face disciplinary hearings and referral to the Royal Court."

Take a look how then Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, helps get this piece of legislation through the chamber from his unelected seat. He makes a mini speech. 



The Bailiff:


"I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?"

10.2 Senator S. Syvret:
I have some concerns about this and unless I receive a convincing explanation I will be forced to vote against it. It seems to me to exclude Jersey Advocates simply because they happen to be Crown Officers from the disciplinary structures and processes of the Law Society is wholly undesirable, given the absence of an alternative framework. Of course it is absolutely fair enough and it makes commonsense that they should not be required to pay themselves the annual subscription fees for the Jersey Law Society, nor indeed carry that kind of private sector professional indemnity insurance that is a requirement. Amending the Law to exclude them from those requirements, or perhaps for the State in some way to pay it for them, would be entirely acceptable but I am afraid removing the Law Officers, referred to by this Law, from the disciplinary structures and the general codes and so on that are required by the Jersey Law Society I regard as wholly unacceptable. I think the argument that they are Crown appointees is, I have to say, a very old fashioned argument and not really a particularly robust or convincing argument to put forward in the 21st century. I do believe that nobody should be above the Law and we regulate the practises of Advocates in Jersey through the Jersey Law Society Law and it seems to me that all Advocates practicing in Jersey, and that includes the Crown Officers, should also be subject to the same disciplinary and professional requirements laid down by the Society. Indeed the Society is empowered to have those requirements at Law. So, Sir, unless I receive a particularly convincing explanation I am going to vote against that particular provision and I urge other Members to do the same. In the 21st century we should not be exempting Crown Officers and Advocates working in the Crown Offices Department from the disciplinary structures required by the Jersey Law Society Law.


We now come to Deputy Higgins oral question in the States of Jersey on 2/7/2013.


3. Oral Questions
3.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Attorney General regarding the professional standards and disciplinary procedures applied to the Law Officers and Jersey qualified lawyers within the Law Officers Department:
Will Her Majesty’s Attorney General - in this case the Solicitor General - explain whether the Law Officers and the Jersey qualified lawyers within his department are subject to the same professional standards and disciplinary procedures of the Law Society of Jersey, which are applied to Jersey advocates or solicitors in private practice, and if not, why not?
Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General (Rapporteur):
The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 does not require any advocate or solicitor of the Royal Court to be a member of the Law Society of Jersey in order to practice as an advocate or solicitor during the course of his or her employment in the Law Officers’ Department.  Anyone who is not a member of the Law Society of Jersey is neither subject to that society’s Code of Conduct nor to its disciplinary procedures.
3.1.1 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
It is my understanding… in fact I think the current Chair as Attorney General was responsible for taking that provision out of the 2005 law or recommending it be taken out of the 2005 law.  In all other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, the Law Officers are subject to the disciplinary panels of their respective law societies, so the Isle of Man, Guernsey and the United Kingdom; can the Solicitor General tell us why he believes that they should not be subject to the same disciplinary powers?  Who is accountable, if they are not accountable to them?
The Solicitor General:
The history of the Law Society Law 2005 is that there was a dialogue between the Law Society and the Law Officers in early 2006 and as a result of that dialogue the Law Society supported an amendment to the law, which removed Law Officers’ Department lawyers from the ambit of the Law Society’s disciplinary procedures.  That matter was debated by the States Assembly and the States Assembly agreed to amend the law with the support of the Law Society.  At the time of that debate, which took place on 19th September 2006, the Solicitor General, at that time, Stephanie Nicolle Q.C., advised States Members that the Law Officers’ Department, if they pass the amendment, would be taken outside the ambit of the Law Society.  So the first answer to the Deputy’s many questions is that this was a decision taken by States Members at the time with the support, at that time, of the Law Society.  As to what other systems might prevail elsewhere, I have not done an extensive review but, as I understand it, in the Isle of Man the Law Society does not discipline anyone.  There is an external body that looks at disciplinary matters.  I understand in Guernsey it is the Law Officers in the first instance who look at complaints about the lawyer in the Law Officers’ Department.  Finally, may I say this, when the Solicitor General, back in 2006, was advising the States Assembly as to the consequences of the amendment, she highlighted a number of points of public policy, which are there for all to see in Hansard, as to why the change was desired.  One point I wish to emphasise today is that there is concern that employees of the Law Officers’ Department are particularly vulnerable and susceptible to malicious complaints by, in particular, defendants who wish to use the complaint to gain some sort of advantage in criminal proceedings.  That concern remains today, and advocates remain at risk of malicious complaint.
3.1.2 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:
Notwithstanding what the Solicitor General has said, could the Solicitor General tell us how the aims of the legislation is applied to non-Crown Officers in the legal profession, how those aims are dealt with within the Crown Officers’ Department?  In other words, how are the professional standards upheld?  How are complaints dealt with so that people feel internally justice has been done?
The Solicitor General:
The Law Officers’ Department have codes of conduct which apply to all lawyers within their department, whether or not they are Jersey-qualified.  So for example, if an English-qualified lawyer is in the department they are still subject to those codes.  There are 2 codes.  The first code is the Civil Service Code, which applies to all public sector employees.  The second code is a Code of Conduct of lawyers at the Law Officer’s Department.  That was a code that I started work on over a year ago, and is now in force and applies to all lawyers.  Thirdly, if one looks at the Law Society of Jersey Law, in respect of Law Society members, it is the Attorney General who decides in those cases whether or not to refer an advocate or solicitor to the Royal Court for disciplinary action in serious cases.  Of course the Attorney General retains that power in respect of his own employees.  Furthermore, the Law Officers’ Department has a procedure in place whereby if there is a complaint that is not vexatious and is sufficiently serious we will appoint an independent Q.C. to investigate the matter so as to bring an independent mind to bear on those things.
3.1.3 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
Just for clarification: would the Solicitor General not acknowledge that the great innovation in dealing with non-Crown Officer lawyers was that there is now a lay element at an important part of the proceedings?  It is not lawyers judging lawyers.
The Solicitor General:
I believe the Deputy is referring to the fact that in the Law Society procedure a President of the Law Society can refer a complaint to a disciplinary committee of the Law Society, which consists, I entirely accept, of some lay members.  However, as I have said, in serious cases it is still the Attorney General who has the power to refer disciplinary matters to the Royal Court.  It is the Attorney General who can overrule the President of the Law Society if he chooses not to take any action.  So in terms of the serious cases, it is still the Attorney General in all cases that deals with these matters.
3.1.4 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:
I have to say… and certainly a few of us still are under the impression that these officers are not under any external responsibility or accountable to anyone.  But my question is, the Solicitor General referred to a dialogue between the Law Society; is it not a fact that that was more of a confrontation and there was the threat of legal action if those amendments were not agreed?
The Solicitor General:
In 2006 there was a letter from the Attorney General to the President of the Law Society, I may have the date wrong, but it was something like 11th January, inviting a conversation about this proposed amendment in the law.  There was a meeting.  I have seen some record of the meeting between the Law Officers and the Law Society.  It was a perfectly amicable meeting, there was a perfectly amicable response from the Law Society, there were no threats of any kind by anyone to anyone.
3.1.5 Senator S.C. Ferguson:
Have there been any disciplinary procedures since you became Solicitor General?
The Solicitor General:
At the Law Officers’ Department or generally?
Senator S.C. Ferguson:
In the Law Officers’ Department.
The Solicitor General:
No.
3.1.6 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
I was interested to hear what the Solicitor General was saying about the amicable relationship with the Law Society, which is different to my understanding because I believe there is a current dispute between the Law Society and the Law Officers over the Law Society wanting to discipline or bring a case to the Royal Court regarding a Crown Advocate and the Attorney General has refused.  Would the Solicitor General care to elaborate on this dispute that is going on, which is obviously straining relations between the 2 bodies?
The Solicitor General:
I entirely accept that the employees of the Law Officers’ Department have to be held to high standards, and they accept that and they understand it.
[10:00]
However, they like everybody else are entitled to be treated with some fairness and they are and should not be subjected to any disciplinary procedure that is unlawful.  If the Law Society do not now, notwithstanding their support for it in 2006, accept the current state of the law then that is of course entirely within their right and they can have any discussions they wish.  But in my view it is not appropriate to commence any sort of disciplinary procedure, which just is not in the law.  That cannot be right.
3.1.7 Deputy M.R. Higgins:
Supplementary, Sir, because the Solicitor General has not fully answered the question.  There is currently a dispute between the Law Society and the Law Officers’ Department.  It is my understanding that the Law Society would like to bring an action against a Crown Advocate and that the Attorney General has refused and is contentious.  Will you confirm that there is a disagreement going on at the present time over whether one of your officers should be disciplined?
The Solicitor General:
No, that is simply not right.  The President of the Law Society or rather the Law Society Committee have reached the view that they have a power to discipline or start disciplinary proceeding in respect of an advocate of the Law Officers’ Department.  I do not share that view.  My view is they do not have any such power.  That is the dispute.  Nobody has stopped the Law Society from doing anything they wanted to, they have chosen not to take action.

Friday, July 5, 2013

P96/2006 - PROTECTING THE JERSEY LAW OFFICE FROM PROSECUTION

SENATOR-PHILIP BAILHACE -BAILIFF OF JERSEY IN 2006 

DEPUTY BAILIFF - WILLIAM BAILHACHE - ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 2006



"P96/2006"



"A LAST MINUTE AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE LAW OFFICERS"



THIS AMENDMENT/ LEGISLATION WAS PASSED THROUGH  THE STATES OF JERSEY IN SEPTEMBER 2006



ONLY A HANDFUL OF POLITICIANS REALISED IT'S  SIGNIFICANCE (NOTHING NEW THERE)



THE JERSEY LAWLESS OFFICE - THE REAL POWER IN TOWN - LED BY THE FEUDAL KINGS PHILIP & WILLIAM BAILHACHE 


Law Society president,Timothy Hanson, has today come out publicly about why allegations of professional misconduct by a lawyer employed by the States have been dropped. This is because the above legislation was passed in the States of Jersey. The Law Society, which is the governing body of lawyers who practise as Jersey advocates and solicitors, was unable to refer the complaint to a disciplinary committee because, under current legislation Law Officers are not required to join the society. Private practise lawyers can face disciplinary hearings and referral to the Royal Court.


Deputy Higgins has been raising these issues in the States of Jersey. When the hansard transcripts are published I will reproduce them here.


What I would like to show you  is how  important pieces of legislation are passed through the states with so little Scrutiny. It was happening in 2006 and it is still happening in 2013.


Former Senator Syvret was not missing a trick on this one. 


Take a look how then Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, helps get this piece of legislation through the chamber from his unelected seat. He makes a mini speech. 

The Bailiff:


"I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?"




Even though no checks were in place they passed it anyway. Nothing has changed. 


THE LAW OFFICE - THE UNTOUCHABLE REAL POWER IN TOWN



Will Chief Minister, Gorst do the right thing and bring this back to the house?


Rico Sorda 


Part Time Investigative Journalist



P.96/2006/
REPORT
The Law Society of Jersey Law 2005 contains a requirement that Jersey advocates and solicitors in practice must join the Society. One consequence is that they may be liable to pay to the Society subscriptions and any levies that it may decide to impose. A second is that they must maintain adequate insurance cover in respect of professional liabilities arising from practice.
Although the Law does not explicitly exclude the Attorney General and the Solicitor General from the requirement, when discharging their public functions they are not considered to be practising as advocates or solicitors.
It is also considered that there are difficulties in applying the requirement to other Jersey advocates and solicitors who are employed in the Law Officers’ Department. They carry out their duties on behalf of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. They are salaried public employees with less freedom of action than private practitioners to participate in the Society’s affairs. Moreover, the need for lawyers in private practice to maintain insurance cover for the protection of clients does not arise in the case of such employees.
The draft Law has no financial or manpower implications for the States.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 will, when brought into force by Act of the States, require the Minister in charge of a Projet de Loi to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Projet with the Convention rights (as defined by Article 1 of the Law). Although the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 is not yet in force, on 27th July 2006 the Chief Minister made the following statement before Second Reading of this Projet in the States Assembly –
In the view of the Chief Minister the provisions of the Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- are compatible with the Convention Rights.
page4image16824.png



10. Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- (P.96/2006)

The Bailiff:
We come now to Projet 96 - the Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200- in the name of the Chief Minister. I ask the Greffier to read the citation of the draft.

The Greffier of the States:
Draft The Law Society of Jersey (Amendment) Law 200-, a law to amend the Law Society of Jersey Law 2005. The States, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law.


10.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
Hopefully this matter may be a little bit less controversial than the last one. This is a fairly simple adjustment which really deals with the anomaly of the members of the Law Society who happen to be Crown Officers or working in the Law Officers Department. The rules and regulations of members of the Law Society working in private practice are not really appropriate to those working in the Law Officers Department and this Law really puts that right by making certain conditions for those people in that category. That is the substance of the amendments and I propose the preamble.

The Bailiff:
Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the principles of the draft?

10.2 Senator S. Syvret:
I have some concerns about this and unless I receive a convincing explanation I will be forced to vote against it. It seems to me to exclude Jersey Advocates simply because they happen to be Crown Officers from the disciplinary structures and processes of the Law Society is wholly undesirable, given the absence of an alternative framework. Of course it is absolutely fair enough and it makes commonsense that they should not be required to pay themselves the annual subscription fees for the Jersey Law Society, nor indeed carry that kind of private sector professional indemnity insurance that is a requirement. Amending the Law to exclude them from those requirements, or perhaps for the State in some way to pay it for them, would be entirely acceptable but I am afraid removing the Law Officers, referred to by this Law, from the disciplinary structures and the general codes and so on that are required by the Jersey Law Society I regard as wholly unacceptable. I think the argument that they are Crown appointees is, I have to say, a very old fashioned argument and not really a particularly robust or convincing argument to put forward in the 21st century. I do believe that nobody should be above the Law and we regulate the practises of Advocates in Jersey through the Jersey Law Society Law and it seems to me that all Advocates practicing in Jersey, and that includes the Crown Officers, should also be subject to the same disciplinary and professional requirements laid down by the Society. Indeed the Society is empowered to have those requirements at Law. So, Sir, unless I receive a particularly convincing explanation I am going to vote against that particular provision and I urge other Members to do the same. In the 21st century we should not be exempting Crown Officers and Advocates working in the Crown Offices Department from the disciplinary structures required by the Jersey Law Society Law.

10.3 H.M. Solicitor General:
I wonder, Sir, if I might respond to the point about the disciplinary controls of the Law Society because I understand the Senator's concern and I can understand that Members as well may be concerned and I think that they should have an explanation of our concerns. The disciplinary controls, such as they are, at the moment - which can be either a complaint to the Bâttonier or a complaint to the Law Society - are generally a complaint by a client about the lawyer who has advised him and those are the most frequent complaints. Our clients are the States and their departments and if the States or any department are unhappy with the service given by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or any member of the department, the States can pursue that through the Chief Minister, through Human Resources or through whatever level is appropriate so that there is not the same need for the client to have a right of recourse to the Law Society. The second point is this; the Attorney General has a number of customary law and indeed statutory functions which increasingly include the inquiry into both locally, and assisting other jurisdictions, quite serious organised crime - frauds, drug trafficking and various other kinds of organised crime. Members will probably have seen in the paper the challenges which are frequently made by persons who are under investigation, here and in other jurisdictions, who have tried to challenge at every step the Attorney General when he has been seeking to assist in investigations into organised crime and into fraud. I am not disclosing anything confidential; there have recently been well-publicised and long drawn-out proceedings in relation to assistance that the Attorney General has been given to the authorities in Brazil who have been inquiring into some very serious alleged corruption and fraud offences. At every stage the lawyers acting for the persons under investigation have sought to impede the assistance that has been given. It would be a God-send, and one of the easiest ways in the world to handicap the Attorney General in this kind of thing, by making spurious complaints to the Law Society. The Law Society would then call upon the Attorney General or whichever lawyer was dealing with this to give a full account of what they were doing and it really would be extremely seriously detrimental to the work of the Attorney General in assisting other jurisdictions and indeed in work in this jurisdiction in the policing of quite serious crimes.

10.4 Deputy of St. Martin:
I can well remember asking questions of how long it was going to take for us to obtain this Law Society Law coming to be and that must have been some years ago and I gather this piece of legislation has taken a number of years to come to fruition. What surprises me really is having come to being that we are now asked to delete something. Maybe we could have an explanation as to why that was not taken into consideration at the time when the Law was drafted. The second question is just as a matter of interest; how much is the subscription to be a member of the Law Society?

Deputy P.N. Troy:
I wondered if I could ask the Solicitor General another question, as to whether this initiative is similarly enforced in other jurisdictions for their legal representatives for any jurisdiction?

H.M. Solicitor General:
I am afraid I cannot assist with the arrangements in other jurisdictions. It is not that I do not wish to assist, I simply do not know.

10.5 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:
I did inquire of the Attorney General when this qualification came through and in part answer to the Deputy of St. Martin, Sir, apparently this was something that was overlooked. But I must admit when the Law did go through, as it went through the Legislation Committee over many, many decades, this was never an issue and this apparently did pop-up at the last minute. The only point, Sir, I would make in reference to the Solicitor General is of course if you have a particular assiduous policeman and he or she is very effective at countering crime and, talking in the nature of their work, they are the subject of an awful lot of complaints to trip them up of course. So, I do not think lawyers in that sense are very different. The other thing I would say, Sir, it is always a feature of professionals like doctors and lawyers that they seek self-regulation because they feel they are in the best position to judge the actions of their peers because of their knowledge of the field in which they work and in a way, Sir, it seems quite strange that the Solicitor General should aver that someone like Human Resources could well be put in the position of dealing with a discipline case against lawyers, whereas it strikes me they fought through the establishment of this particular disciplinary procedure. They have fought for the right to be judged by their peers, not to be judged, for example, by a Personnel Department so there seems a bit of inconsistency there.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:
Just a brief question for the Solicitor General, Sir. The Law Society of Jersey, if they were given leave to work outside of the Law Society, or not be members, if there was a genuine complaint, shall we say, to whom would they be answerable?


H.M. Solicitor General:
Does that mean a genuine complaint from a Member of the States or States Department about the service provided by the Law Officers or a complaint from a member of the public? I think the answer is probably different depending on who the complaint comes from. If there is a States entity who has a complaint about the conduct of the Law Officers - if it is a member of the department - that can be raised with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. If it is a complaint of course about one of us then it would, I think, have to be taken up politically.

10.6 Senator W. Kinnard:
I do hesitate to rise but as one of those who trawled through this law as a previous President of Legislation I am afraid I was not present if this was discussed at the Council of Ministers. I am just a little concerned that I do not think there has been sufficient thought from 2 points; if complaints are made against the police during the conduct of a criminal case this is dealt with after the criminal case has been concluded. I do have concerns that in this day and age of transparency that I still have concerns that it is not as clear to all of us here as to whether what we are suggesting is similar or different to other jurisdictions. My understanding is that all the lawyers for instance in England and Wales are subject to the restrictions and sanctions of the Law Society. I did send a note urging that we should perhaps delay this to have more research done as to what does go on elsewhere and to consider it further and I make that request again now today. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff:
I do not wish to join in the debate at all but I hope that Members will appreciate that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are Crown Officers and are accountable strictly to the Crown. They are of course accountable in a practical sense, as the Solicitor General has said, to whom they provide advice - that is to say States’ Members and States’ departments - but they are also accountable to the Crown. When a complaint - and I say this without fear of being controversial at all - is made against a Crown Officer, if it is made to the Lieutenant Governor, as the Queen's personal representative over here, it is investigated as appropriate to the complaint which is made. There is no question that the Attorney General and Solicitor General are unaccountable. Does any other Member wish to speak?

10.7 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:
I feel confident that the advice that has been given to us by the Solicitor General and also by yourself and your contribution there, Sir - although very guarded in your advice - I think is that the States can take this on board and agree with it in the knowledge that there are avenues for complaints, should we wish to make them. At the moment I am completely happy with the situation that exists between our relationships, with not only the Law Officers but also your good offices, as States’ Members, who are accountable to the public, Sir. I believe quite strongly that if I have a view to take-up an issue on behalf of the public, as I do sometimes undertake to do, that I am given a fair crack of the whip in doing so and it is only my abilities or the lack of them that stop me from proceeding.

The Bailiff:
I call upon the Deputy Chief Minister to reply.

10.8 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:
I am grateful to the Solicitor General and indeed to yourself, Sir, for dealing with some of the points that have been raised during this debate probably in a better way than I could have done. In response to Senator Syvret, I simply add that nobody in the Island is above the Law. What we are dealing with here is the best way in dealing with a complaints procedure and it may well be that the situation is slightly different between that of the Crown Officers appointed by the Crown and those practising law within the Law Officers Department who indeed would be employees of the States working under the Attorney General and Solicitor General. But to the extent, Sir, that these are employees of the States, just like any other employees of the States, complaints should be made in the proper way and in a normal complaints procedure in respect of any States’ officer. As to the other comments that have been made from the Deputy of St. Martin, why was the amendment brought in so soon? I think because when one sees something is wrong one tries to put it right as soon as possible. One does not leave it in the wrong. He would like to know how much the subscription is. I am sorry, I did not come prepared with that one because I did not think the quantum of the subscription was particularly relevant to this amendment to the Law. If he is really interested I am sure we can find out for him. The question from Deputy Le Hérissier about whether self-regulation is suitable: I am not really sure what we are getting at there. In terms of complaints procedures I have said there is a formal complaints procedure in place and I will also deal with the comments of Deputy Lewis about any complaint from a member of the public. Senator Kinnard who thinks we should defer this, I think no, it is pretty straightforward. If the Senator is not happy that the Law, in its present form, is addressing the issue then the simply remedy is to vote against the principle of the Law, Sir. I maintain the principle of the law.

The Bailiff:
May I ask any Member who wishes to vote on the principles of the draft, who is in the precinct, to return to his or her seat. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

POUR: 34

CONTRE: 6

ABSTAIN: 0
Senator T.A. Le Sueur

Senator S. Syvret


Senator P.F. Routier

Senator W. Kinnard


Senator M.E. Vibert

Deputy of St. Martin


Senator P.F.C. Ozouf

Deputy C.J. Scott Warren (S)


Senator T.J. Le Main

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)


Senator B.E. Shenton

Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)


Senator F.E. Cohen




Senator J.L. Perchard




Connétable of St. Saviour




Connétable of St. Mary




Connétable of St. Peter




Connétable of St. Clement




Connétable of St. Lawrence




Connétable of Grouville




Connétable of St. John




Connétable of St. Brelade




Connétable of St. Martin




Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)




Deputy A. Breckon (S)




Deputy J.J. Huet (H)




Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C)




Deputy P.N. Troy (B)




Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B)




Deputy of St. Ouen




Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H)




Deputy of Grouville




Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)




Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H)




Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)




Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (L)




Deputy S.S.P.A. Power (B)




Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (H)




Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)




Deputy of St. Mary