Parish insurers refuse to pay Constable's latest legal bill

Tuesday 16 March 2021

St. John’s insurance company has declined to pay the Constable’s legal bill for a case that ultimately led to him being deemed “not fit for office."

Following a two-day civil hearing last month, the Royal Court ruled yesterday afternoon that Chris Taylor should resign in light of his dangerous driving conviction and protestations of innocence to the local media after his sentencing.

Despite the fact that his previous decision to use Parish money to pay his £7,400 lawyers’ fees for the dangerous driving case - funds he later paid back - also formed part of the argument that he had breached his oath of office, Mr Taylor also still submitted a claim to have his fees reimbursed for his most recent court appearance.

His legal representative, Advocate David Steenson, made the admission during the closing minutes of last month’s hearing.

During the hearing, the Royal Court had also been asked to decide if St. John Procureurs Stephen Hewlett and Michel Larose failed in their duty to look after the Parish’s finances.

Pictured: Even though part of the case against Chris Taylor involved his use of Parish money for his legal fees, he still made another claim for St. John's insurers to repay his latest bill.

Advocate Steenson said the Parish insurance had not been 'deployed' for the proceedings and that the Constable had paid himself. The procureurs’ lawyers said it was the same for their clients.

But Advocate Steenson then added that Taylor had made a claim to the Parish's insurance company to get the fees paid reimbursed, but that the insurers hadn’t agreed to it yet.

As the Royal Court's judgment that the Constable was "not fit for office" and should resign was handed down yesterday, Advocate Steenson confirmed that the insurance company had since denied Taylor's claim.

The Court decided to take no action against the Procureurs, even though they recognised they had fallen short, and instead issued words of advice, given that they were both acting in an honorary capacity and “the obvious gaps in any explicit material as to their duties."

Advocate Hiren Mistry argued that his client, Stephen Hewlett, should have all his legal costs reimbursed, rather than paid on a ‘standard basis.'

He questioned whether it was right that someone who “has given 36 years of his life [to voluntary service], he’s now retired… needs to fund a defence on something where it was clear his duties had to be defined."

In their judgment, the Court shared the view that while the Constable should bear his own costs, both Procureurs should have their's paid on the ‘standard basis’ by the Court due to the honorary nature of their service.

“The matters raised have not previously been the subject of any court judgment and are of general public importance in all the parishes, and, as presently advised, we think could have given rise to an application for a protective costs order,” the Court wrote. 

“In addition, the Procureurs, although having a direct interest in the matter, have that interest by dint of their honorary service to the parish and while this will not always follow, we are minded to think that on the facts in this case, a costs penalty upon them would be harsh, even in respect of their own costs.”

Pictured: Advocate Hiren Mistry argued that his client should have his costs repaid in full.

Advocate Nina Benest, who was representing Michel Larose, described how her client and Mr Hewlett had been “caught up in events not of their making." She said that while he had acted in “good faith in his honorary capacity”, he had been candid to admit that “with the benefit of hindsight things should and could have been dealt with better."

She said Mr Larose was grateful with the cost order the Court had made.

Advocate Steenson then interjected to tell the Court that no money would be recovered through the Parish insurance, adding that Mr Taylor’s claim had been denied. 

Sir William Bailhache noted that Mr Hewlett was “fortunate” that he should have an order of costs made in his favour given the finding of facts that had been made against him. He added that he didn’t think it would be appropriate to “uplift the costs to the indemnity basis” as it would amount to a preferential treatment when the Court had been more critical of his actions than those of Mr Larose.

In their judgment, the Court recommended that insurance cover for voluntary parish officials be looked into, suggesting, if it does not exist, “the equivalent of Directors and Officers insurance cover for any procureurs acting in good faith."

“Indeed, the extent of insurance cover might on the face of it go wider than the Connétable and members of the honorary police and extend to other voluntary officials in service of their parish - rate assessment committee members, roads committee members and roads inspectors and so on to the extent that their duties would take them into areas where they might personally be exposed to claims in damages for things done or omitted in the execution of their duty,” they wrote. 

“This is absolutely an area, in our judgment, for investigation and consultation.” 

READ MORE...

Royal Court orders "not fit for office" Constable to resign