Constable and officials to appear before Royal Court

Wednesday 17 February 2021

The Constable of St. John, and two parish officials, will today appear before the Royal Court, to consider Chris Taylor's dangerous driving conviction and use of parish finances for his legal fees.

The Court will be asked to decide whether Mr Taylor's actions fell short of the standards expected of him, and constituted a breach of his oath of office.

In addition, the Attorney General, Mark Temple, has asked the Royal Court to consider whether the Constable and two of the parish’s Procureurs, Stephen Hewlett and Michel Larose, failed in their duty to protect the parish’s finances.

Pictured: The Constable of St. John, Chris Taylor, was found guilty of dangerous driving in August 2020.

The Royal Court has an "inherent supervisory jurisdiction" over Jersey's Connétables and parish officers, including the Procureurs du Bien Public, who are responsible for managing parish accounts.

The representation from the Attorney General came after Constable Taylor’s conviction for dangerous driving on 20 August 2020. It followed an incident on 2 June 2019 during which the Constable had repeatedly driven his car at a slow speed into the legs of a cycling race marshal on La Rue de Bechet es Cats in Trinity.

He was banned from driving for 18 months, given a £4,000 fine and ordered to pay £800 towards the prosecution costs. 

Pictured: Parish funds were used to pay the Constable's legal fees before he paid them back, minus the GST.

The Attorney General’s representation also refers to the fact Parish funds were used to pay £7,431.64 in legal fees to BCR Law after they defended the Constable's charge of dangerous driving.

The fees were eventually paid back by the Constable on 23 July, minus the GST. “No explanation has been provided as to why the Parish has had to absorb the GST element of these legal fees,” the representation states.

All three respondents have now filed a response to the Attorney General's claims. Advocate David Steenson filed one on behalf of the Constable, noting he didn’t accept the decision of the Relief Magistrate. 

The lawyer “respectfully submits” that the Court should not impose any further sanction following his criminal conviction, arguing it has “no power, at least none clearly asserted” to deprive him of his livelihood.

He argues it would be an infringement of the Constable’s human rights to “punish him twice for the same offence” and that the power to remove him from office rests with the States Assembly.

Pictured: The Constable said he doesn't accept the decision of the Relief Magistrate. 

Constable Taylor equally rejects the suggestion that he acted “dishonestly or fraudulently”, claiming that he genuinely regarded the defence of his dangerous driving charge as a Parish matter.  

He also notes he was not involved in discussions where claims were made that advice had been taken from the Attorney General regarding the use of the funds. 

The submission then goes on to question the “true nature” of today's Royal Court proceedings, which he says is “not altogether clear”.

In their respective submissions, both Messrs Hewlett and Larose said they had signed the Parish cheques to pay BCR Law on the basis that the Constable would pay any shortfall once the insurance claim had been processed.

Mr Larose’s lawyer, Advocate Nina Benest, added that there can’t be any suggestion that the Procureurs were attempting to “act in an underhand manner or any way that sought to conceal the payment” from the parishioners, as it was shared with the accountants and auditors and recorded in the Parish Accounts.

Advocate Hiren Mistry, who is representing Mr Hewlett, rejected the allegation that his client had misled the Parish Assembly by saying he had sought advice.

“To clarify and to put this into context, he never said that he had taken advice from the AG or the Royal Court, but that I had taken advice, which was as he states true,” Advocate Mistry wrote.

“This is also reflected in the Minutes and it is submitted that the Royal Court take the Minutes and the Second Respondent’s account to be accurate.”

The representation will be heard by Royal Court Commissioner Sir William Bailhache, with Jurats Charles Blampied, Jerry Ramsden and Jane Ronge. The hearing is due to begin at 10:00.