Select a region
Yesterday marked the first time in more than 25 years that a Constable had been ordered to resign by the Royal Court.
Following a two-day civil hearing last month, it concluded that St. John’s Chris Taylor was “not fit for office” following his dangerous driving conviction, use of parish funds to pay his legal fees, and protests to the media that he was innocent.
It also issued “words of advice” to his parish Procureurs, after considering whether they had failed to protect the parish’s purse by allowing the Constable to pay his legal bill with St. John parishioners’ funds - money which he later paid back.
The reason the Court was able to make such findings is steeped in more than a century of custom. Here, Express delves into the history and process…
When it comes to elected representatives, voters might believe that the final say over whether a politician stays or goes rests with them - but that’s not always the case.
The Royal Court has what’s known as an “inherent supervisory jurisidiction” over parish matters.
That’s because both Constables and Parish officials take their oath of office before the Royal Court to ensure the “the peace of Her Majesty be kept” and oppose any actions that threaten this “peace” - in other words, they make a ‘promise’ to the Royal Court that they will look after the parish and behave well.
Part of that “supervisory” role is reflected in the Royal Court’s ‘Visites Royales’ to each parish once every six years. Dating back to the 13th century, or possibly even earlier, such ‘visites’ were mainly concerned with the upkeep of parish roads, but these days include a review of Parish accounts and the Chef de Police’s Parish Hall Enquiries.
There are several judgments from the previous two centuries evidencing the court’s ability to make decisions on whether Constables and their Procureurs are ‘fit for office’.
In 1886, the Royal Court ordered fresh elections in St. Peter after deciding its Constable was “ineligible for election”.
More than 60 years later, in 1949, the Royal Court had to consider whether a St. John Procureur should have to resign after he was fined £250 - with six months’ in prison in default if he didn’t pay up - for breaking a law relating to the supply of milk. In the end, the Royal Court decided that he was allowed to retain his position.
Such cases were referenced among others by the Royal Court this week, as it rebutted Taylor’s lawyer’s argument that the Royal Court did not have “jurisdiction” over the Constable and Parish, saying that “by the turn of the 20th Century, the court’s jurisdiction over the municipality of the parishes had been undeniably established.”
“…To this day, all members of the Honorary Police as well as members of the parish municipality appear in court in person, generally on a Friday, to take their oaths of office. Such ceremonies are usually attended not only by members of the officer’s family and friends but also by representatives of the parish, confirming those links between the parishes and the court. They affect hundreds of people directly and many more indirectly. They form part of the traditional fabric of the island.”
The most recent example involved another Constable of St. John, who was found to have driven with excess alcohol in his blood back in 1994.
While the alcohol reading was relatively low compared to other cases dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court at the time (100miligrams of alcohol per ml of blood against the limit of 80 miligrams), the Royal Court decided that it was still appropriate that the Constable resign.
The reason for this was because the Constables hold the role of Head of Police in their Parishes - a role that carries an obligation not to break the law.
Absolutely - and the Royal Court was very clear about those feelings in yesterday's judgment.
"We start by saying that we find the exercise of the discretion which the law affords us is one that is always likely to be personally uncomfortable as decision takers in this small community; but the existence of it is nonetheless one we recognise as important, and one which in the interests of the wider community we must not shirk," they wrote.
"We are dealing with the potential tension between the expressions of the democratic will on the one hand – because whether there is a contested election or not, each of the Respondents has been elected to office - and on the other hand with the standards of public office which any court would expect to be upheld in circumstances where the office holder owes significant duties of care to the public which elected him or her as well as a responsibility to the court which administered the oath of office."
They went on to add: "In the case of each of the Respondents, we have no doubt as to the commitment they have demonstrated to their parish and its parishioners. For the Connétable, there is a modest salary which is paid from central funds, which many would view objectively as moderate when weighed against the hours spent in, and the responsibility of, performing the duties of office. In the case of the Procureurs, the commitment is demonstrated by their occupation of positions which attract no salary or remuneration but do also involve both responsibility and potentially significant amounts of time. That is likely to be true of other positions in the parochial municipality.
"That the Court should sit in judgment on men and women who devote, sometimes for decades, their time and emotional energy to serving their parish without any or any substantial reward, save that of knowing they are doing their duty to the parish as best they can, is a responsibility for us which must be exercised with appreciation of the commitment made, with realism as to what can reasonably be expected of those who give voluntary service, with determination in seeking an appropriate level of public confidence in the parochial administration, and with the humanity that comes from the knowledge that each of us is fallible."
In the 1994 Constable of St. John judgment, the Court unanimously decided that any breaking of the law should lead to a resignation unless there were “special circumstances” relating to the offence and events surrounding it - but not relating to the offender.
At the time, they were also clear that the personal long service of the Constable in question could not exonerate him.
While the Court decided that voters’ wish for a Constable to remain in office was “an important consideration because it is an elected post”, it was clear that the Constable’s position had to be considered in view of his position as head of police.
“…He is not like a constable or inspector in the police in England, he is a parish chief constable. The court has no doubt that if a chief constable in England were convicted of a drink driving offence then inevitably he would resign.”
Personal characteristics did come into play in 2001, when the Royal Court sat to consider whether the Constable of St. Helier's conduct fell short in relation to investigating complaints into the Honorary Police and sharing those with the Attorney General - in breach of the Honorary Police Regulations 1977. The Court decided that there was "no suggestion of dishonesty" and that the omissions were "mistaken", but nonetheless decided to reprimand him for the breach of duty. In reaching a view about his sanction, it took into account his years of honorary service, which he had given both as Centenier and Constable's Officer.
In Chris Taylor’s case, the court acknowledged that the Constable had “served his parish well” by, among other things, “keeping the rates unchanged for some years”.
However, they said that it was not the Royal Court’s place to judge whether a Constable has done a good or bad job - that “subjective assessment” is for the electors only. It is simply tasked with making an objective decision about whether they are ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ for office by law.
“…Petulance, arrogance, a failure to follow a manifesto or any other political reasons, perhaps even a refusal to respect institutions such as the courts of the island, are undesirable characteristics in any member of the States but would not be grounds for a court to require a Connétable to resign,” the Royal Court concluded in its judgment yesterday.
In other words, no matter how bad an individual’s behaviour, the Royal Court won’t punish them for their personality or political decisions.
Preceded by a statement progressing the Royal Court’s “sadness that [Chris Taylor’s] years of valuable service to his parish should come to an end in such a way”, the Royal Court’s direction that he resign might almost read as a polite request that the Constable could simply refuse.
But individuals given any kind of direction by the court are bound to obey such orders. If they do not, they will find themselves at risk of being in contempt of court, which can carry serious penalties.
The Attorney General - the island’s top prosecutor, who is also responsible for bringing the proceedings to court in the first place - must then apply to the Royal Court as soon as possible to set dates for a nomination meeting and fresh election.
Until a new person is elected and is sworn in before the Royal Court, the Constable continues in office.
Of course, it is possible for a Constable or Parish official to appeal the Royal Court's decision, but they would have to decide on what basis to challenge it - that could involve an attempt to argue that the Royal Court did not have the authority to make the finding it did or an argument based on the specific facts of the case.
Express asked Constable Chris Taylor's lawyer whether he would be appealing, but he declined to comment.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.