"Serious questions need to be asked"

Friday 18 January 2019

The lawyer representing two politicians, who were accused of committing an offence under the elections law before having the case dropped against them, has hit out at the Judicial Greffier and Attorney General's Department for putting them through a "harrowing and distressing" time.

The comments from Advocate Hiren Mistry came this morning, after his clients - Deputies Scott Wickenden and Hugh Raymond - were officially told in the Magistrate's Court that they would no longer be facing trial. They were not awarded their court costs.

This morning's decision came following a revelation this week from Attorney General Robert MacRae, who said that 45 elections candidates - 18 of whom being sitting politicians - were also suspected of committing an offence under the Public Elections Law.

He argued that it would not be “in the public interest” to prosecute all 45 candidates, stating that it would therefore be unfair to “single out” the trio.

Pictured: The two deputies and St. Helier candidate Bernard Manning were all facing trial.

With 18 of those implicated in the offences being sitting politicians, he added that prosecution would risk a government shutdown, as anyone found guilty would be disqualified from their seat.

Despite the case against them closing this morning, Advocate Hiren Mistry said that there were still "serious questions that need to be asked" of the authorities that allowed the prosecutions to go ahead in the first place, blasting the Attorney General and Judicial Greffier's Department for "a list of fatal errors, which has led to my clients being arrested and then charged".

He added: "From the outset, I have been requesting that the Prosecution provide me with disclosure of certain documents, which was refused on the grounds of relevance, and it now transpires that the same documents that I was seeking and was refused has been the contributing factor to the prosecution against my clients being dropped.

"My clients now wish to draw a line under this matter and they wish to thank all of those who have been supportive of them during this process."

Pictured: Attorney General, Robert MacRae.

The saga has now led to two politicians to put in proposals to update the current law by making it easier to follow and more transparent.

Deputy John Young, who is Minister for the Environment, has put forward proposals to make a detailed breakdown of candidates’ election spending viewable on a public website. 

“…Recent events have demonstrated, beyond any doubt, why this change is needed and why it requires urgent action,” he explained.

He said that the only way of viewing expenses currently was inadequate, as it involved members of the public making a scheduled visit to see the records.

Pictured: Deputy John Young wants all elections expenses to be declared by candidates and then placed on a website.

The Deputy continued: “I believe publication of the candidates’ declarations on the States Assembly website would subject the declarations to the discipline of public scrutiny. Having myself stood as a senatorial candidate in the 2014 elections, I also noted significant differences between candidates on the level of their apparent spending during the campaign. Being interested to enquire whether there was any correlation between candidates’ spending and the outcome of the election in particular, I tested this arrangement by inspecting the records myself.

“At the time of my visit… I noticed that not all candidates had submitted a return by the due date, and that there was a wide variation in the information provided by candidates. Most provided some detailed breakdown of costs, and one disclosed a total figure only, without providing any breakdown of costs, which I consider unsatisfactory.”

Deputy Jeremy Macon, meanwhile, has put forward plans to ensure that the process for submitting expenses is more robust, as well as suggesting a change of wording in the law.

He has suggested introducing a process of confirmation when expenses are submitted, a validation process in order to ensure candidates can correct any errors, a statutory reminder of the deadline and that politicians assess the deadline. 

Pictured: Deputy Jeremy Macon wishes to make the expenses declaration process more robust.

In a report outlining his proposals, he added: “The term “election expenses” through the media conjures a different image in the public imagination, rather than the reality of candidates funding their own campaigns at their own cost, bar the contribution of vote.je. This term, therefore, should also be changed.”

The Deputy, who says he submitted his expenses on time, told Express: “Whilst the public can have confidence that elections in Jersey were free and fair in that there is no evidence of the spending limits being breached. Candidates pay for their own election costs. What is clear is that the process surrounding the declaration of elections costs needs to be improved as this whole saga has exposed. I’ve asked for changes that should help support candidates in completing an important process.”

Both ideas will be debated by States Members on 26 February.

Issues surrounding the deadline for submissions were particularly pertinent in the ongoing saga. The Attorney General admitted in his statement earlier this week that the Judicial Greffier, who is no longer in the employment of the courts, allowed some candidates a deadline extension when there is, in fact, no part of the law allowing this.

The current Judicial Greffier, Advocate Adam Clarke, yesterday apologised to candidates for the error in an email.

READ: Click below to see the full email...