Church challenge uncovers Constable’s legal bill controversy

Wednesday 22 July 2020

The St. John Constable’s decision to use ratepayers' money to pay his legal bills in relation to his dangerous driving case only came to light when the Rector and churchwardens challenged an “unexpected” £7,000 overspend in the parish’s accounts, it has emerged.

Approved last week, the accounts show that Constable Chris Taylor, who is also an Assistant Minister, spent a total of £7,078 on his defence against a charge of driving dangerously on Rue du Bechet ès Cats in Trinity, on 2 June last year.

However, the spend on the case - for which the Constable is still yet to stand trial – only came to light following scrutiny by Reverend Beverley Sproats and her fellow churchwardens.

At a meeting prior to last week’s Parish Assembly, the group had been going through the final accounts for the year ended April 2020 when they noticed that the spend on ‘Legal and Professional Fees’ stood at £10,033 – far higher than the £3,000 budgeted.

Pictured: The Constable is due to face a Magistrate's Court trial over a charge of dangerous driving.

When they asked about this, the group were told that the rise was due to the Constable’s legal bills being covered by the Parish, which was justified on the basis that Chris Taylor had been acting in his official role at the time of the alleged offence.

The Rector and churchwardens therefore asked for a note to be included in the accounts, which were audited by Alex Picot, ahead of them going before the Parish Assembly for approval. 

It read: “Included with Legal and Professional Fees is an amount of £7,078 relating to legal services incurred by the Constable in relation to a matter which occurred while acting in his capacity as Constable of the Parish.

“There is a reasonable expectation that the Parish will receive reimbursement, either in full or in part, for the amounts paid by the Parish in this respect.”

Despite assurances being given that at least some of the money would be recouped through insurance, the Rector and churchwardens ended up voting against approving the accounts amid concerns over whether the spend was a legitimate use of parish funds. 

Pictured: St. John Rector, Reverend Beverley Sproats.

“I didn’t feel able to vote for it because I felt I still had a question over it,” the Reverend said.  

“…We raised the question about an item that wasn’t in the original budget about expenditure whether it’s appropriate or not; we were raising the question because we want to feel comfortable about how parish funds are being spent.”

She added that procureurs had said that legal advice was sought on the matter, but noted that “there was not detail given”.

Churchwarden Stuart Langhorn told Express he felt the saga had raised questions of transparency and process.

Describing the meeting as “quite heated”, he explained: “Naturally, there was a query. That’s quite a lot of money. The answer was, this was to pay for the Constable’s legal expenses. At that point, we thought, ‘Hang on a minute, is this the Constable’s criminal case? …Is this a personal matter? Why is the parish paying for the Constable’s personal matter?’”

Denying claims made in the media by Constable Taylor that the group had been “stirring things”, Mr Langhorn added: “We need to know that a process has been followed. The process needs to be done correctly and it needs to be done transparently, and in this case it has not.” 

He continued: “We are not saying anyone has behaved dishonestly…or in an immoral way. It’s important that there is transparency.”

As news of the parish-funded legal bills circulated yesterday, parishioners and even one of the Constable’s Ministerial colleagues took to social media to share their outrage.

Pictured: Senator Sam Mézec said it should be "illegal" for a Constable to use parish funds in the way Chris Taylor had done.

Housing Minister Senator Sam Mézec wrote on Facebook: “This is totally unacceptable.

"I am staggered that Ratepayers money has been approved to pay for a politician’s legal bills in a criminal trial for a driving offence.

“If this sort of payment is not already illegal, it should be made illegal.”