Pale, male, stale… and ignored by politicians

Thursday 19 October 2017

A major review of the way islanders can complain about States decisions has criticised it for not being easy to use, lacking diversity, and often having its findings snubbed by Ministers.

Published yesterday, a £15,000 report by the Law Commission found that far fewer people were using the island’s administrative justice system compared to similar jurisdictions.

The Jersey Complaints Panel, a body for members of the public to appeal decisions or highlight poor administration processes of any minister or States department, was found to receive just 11 complaints per year - of which fewer than three proceeded to hearings - while smaller jurisdictions attracted between 100 and 200.

When the Panel upheld a complaint, Ministers were found to reject their findings and recommendations on nearly half of all occasions, often coupling this with “highly critical” remarks about the Panel’s approach. The report said that this led to an “unstable relationship” between the two authorities.

 Pictured: Accessing justice through the island's current administrative redress systems was found to be "not user friendly" by the Law Commission

“...The high level of disagreement between Ministers and the Complaints Panel does not provide a sound basis for the relationship of mutual respect that must exist in a system where the Panel’s findings and recommendations are not binding orders,” it noted.

Such a view backed the findings of a 2004 States report, which lambasted the system’s lack of ‘teeth’ and ability to follow up when their recommendations are not implemented.

The review also took aim at the homogenous nature of both the Complaints Panel and tribunal boards, stating that the “stereotype that lay tribunal members in Jersey are retired men, mostly with a background in working for the States” was “broadly accurate.”

This too was found to be the case for the Complaints Panel, with only two of the 12 members being women, and eight of the 12 being retired or semi-retired. While making no criticism of the individuals concerned, the report argued that this lack of diversity undermines their ability to provide “a representative public view.”

We have published our report on improving administrative redress in Jersey. #tribunals #complaints #lawreform https://t.co/s3WkCVIzOF

— @JsyLawCom (@JsyLawCom) October 17, 2017

Following their review, which took into consideration evidence from members of the public, States and judiciary, the Law Commission have since put forward nine key recommendations for improvement - including scrapping the Complaints Panel in favour of a Jersey Public Services Ombudsman.

Their plans would also see the eight existing tribunals spanning taxes, social security, mental health, health and safety, data protection and rates - some of which have not met in years - dissolved into a single ‘Jersey Administrative Appeals Tribunal.’

JAAT would be encouraged to have a diverse panel of members to ensure “different life experiences and perspectives” including laypeople, and a Chairman and Deputy Chairman requiring a minimum number of years of relevant experience to help guide the team in their decisionmaking. All appointments would be permanent, with a mandatory requirement to resign at the age of 72.

Ending several Ministers’ roles in making appeal decisions was also judged as a priority. Under the proposals, the Home Affairs Minister would no longer have responsibility for appeals related to wedding and civil service venues, the Treasury Minister would cease to make impot-related calls, the Education Minister would pass on responsibility for special educational needs’ determinations and the Infrastructure Minister would not hear appeals on motor vehicle licenses.

Pictured: According to a previous report, setting up a Jersey Public Services Ombudsman could cost around £300,000.

Nonetheless, the report suggested that there is already political pushback against the proposed reforms - particularly in relation to the ombudsman.

Opposition largely revolved around who should carry out the work, and debate surrounding costs. While the report makes no estimation of expenditure necessary to set up the service, the Privileges and Procedures Committee have previously estimated £300,000.

Nonetheless, the report noted: “It is not our intention to propose a grandiose and unjustifiably expensive package of reforms. The final assessment of the costs and benefits of making changes is a political decision for the Government of Jersey and the States of Jersey.”