Comment: Time for Bailiff's role to be split

Monday 11 September 2017

As well as bringing you daily news coverage of what's happening in Jersey, in the coming months Express will be publishing a series of opinion articles from guest writers on topics that affect all of us in Jersey.

Today, we begin that series with the views of Andy Jehan - formerly of Jersey Post and a St John Procurer - on a historic debate which will soon come before the States Assembly: should the Bailiff continue to act as head of the States and the Courts?

Here's what he had to say...

States members are soon to be asked again about splitting the role of the Bailiff, and so electing a Speaker for the States of Jersey.

This question has been raised many times before, and most recently the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (IJCI) recommended again that the States review the dual responsibility.

Pictured: The publication of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry report resurrected the debate over the Bailiff's dual role.

Previous reports from both Clothier and Carswell recommend a split between the legislature and the judiciary. How many times in recent years have we heard that Jersey has to ensure it has up-to-date legislation, to the required standards for our finance industry? Some of the people who led those changes are now at the forefront of looking to prevent change to the office of the Bailiff. The current situation doesn't show us well to the outside world. 

The current Bailiff has written to the Council of Ministers, and the Chair of Privileges and Procedures Committee, defending the status quo, and asking that the recent Care Inquiry not be used as part of the argument. Interestingly, he suggests a referendum on the matter. 

What the Bailiff didn't cover in his letter was the Care Inquiry's observations of the relationship between the Law Officers department and the Police at the time - strange how some things slip our minds.

Now we have the External Relations Minister, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache (the Bailiff's brother) making an amendment to the proposed changes again suggesting a referendum, part of his argument being 500 years of tradition; again, strange that 500 years of tradition isn't thought important enough when it comes to the island's relationship with the Church - but that's for another day. 

Pictured: Senator Sir Philip Bailhache - Minister for External Relations and the current Bailiff's brother - made a counterproposal for a referendum on the Bailiff's role.

In 2012, I wrote to the Electoral Commission (chaired by Sir Philip) with my views on the proposed changes to government, and how I thought the parochial system could be strengthened, rather than weakened, by change. I also included in my submission that the question of the Bailiff's dual role should be put to the public; sadly, that wasn't done and five years have elapsed, still with no change.

Those of us who worked hard to persuade our fellow islanders that change should happen, are only too aware of the States reluctance to accept the result of the referendum - so why should we go back to the ballot box now to give our views? 

Have you ever questioned why cases take so long to come before the Royal Court? Have you ever stopped to consider both the cost of Court commissioners, and the impact on all parties when cases are delayed? Removing the Bailiff from the States would not only save money, but also speed up the judicial process, if both the Bailiff and his Deputy focussed on their principal Judicial role, rather than preparing for, and sitting in, the States. 

In my view, 2017 is the time for our States members to demonstrate that they actually can do something positive to reform the States, and once this is done they should move on to the other non-elected members. Evolution not revolution is what's needed. We have lots to be proud of in our history, but there are things that have to change - this is just one of them. 

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and not those of Bailiwick Express. Hear more from Andy Jehan here.