Royal Court orders Constable to resign as “not fit for office”

Monday 15 March 2021

The Royal Court has ordered the Constable of St. John to resign, concluding that he is “not fit for office” due to his dangerous driving conviction and continued protests of innocence in the media.

Chris Taylor will, however, be able to remain in post until an election takes place.

Procureurs Stephen Hewlett and Michel Larose were also issued with “words of advice” after the court considered whether they had failed in their duty to protect the parish’s finances.

Taylor was found to have repeatedly driven into the legs of a cycle race marshal at slow speed in June 2019 following a Magistrate’s Court trial last year, for which he was fined £4,000 and given a driving ban.

It also emerged that he had used more than £7,400 in parish money to pay for his legal fees to fight the case - funds which he later repaid.

Pictured: Procureurs Stephen Hewlett and Michel Larose were issued "words of advice" after the Court considered if they had failed in their duty to protect parish finances.

In a judgment handed down this afternoon by Commissioner Sir William Bailhache, sitting with Jurats Blampied, Ramsden and Ronge, Taylor was directed to resign because his “level of criminality” was deemed inconsistent with his oath to keep the “Queen’s peace”.

The conclusion followed a two-day civil hearing last month, which saw Taylor's lawyer - Advocate David Steenson - argue that the Court didn’t have jurisdiction over Constables.

He also argued that any punishment decided upon by the Royal Court would breach the concept of 'double jeopardy', with the Constable in effect being punished twice.

But the Court disagreed with both arguments. It listed a variety of cases stretching back more than a century, noting that it had “no doubt at all that the Royal Court has exercised a jurisdiction over the eligibility and fitness for office for particular parish offices”.

The Court noted that exercising this jurisdiction was “always likely to be personally uncomfortable” due to the “potential tension” between the “expression of the democratic will” and the “standards of public office which any court would expect to be upheld”.

“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 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,” it said.

They rejected the view that removing the Constable from office amounted to double jeopardy as the proceedings were disciplinary rather than criminal, and the Relief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take this step.

Pictured: Constable Chris Taylor was convicted of dangerous driving in the Magistrate's Court last year.

The Court noted that it was clear from the Relief Magistrate’s judgment that there was “no middle ground” between the Constable’s account, which was described as “implausible”, and that of the prosecution witnesses.

“It follows that [the Relief Magistrate] must have considered that the Connétable was not telling the truth in his evidence.” 

The Court also noted that the facts found by the Relief Magistrate not only established the charge of dangerous driving but could “almost certainly have established a charge of grave and criminal assault if that had been brought”.

The judgment also refers to comments in a media report on the day of the hearing and stated: “I do not accept, however, that the Relief Magistrate was correct to find as she did and I maintain my innocence."

While the Court said it understood some defendants are “personally unable to accept the decision of a criminal court”, they added that or the Connétable to volunteer a statement to a journalist that he was innocent and had been convicted of a crime he did not commit was “different”. 

They wrote that the Constable had an obligation to uphold the rule of law and had promised to “ensure the Queen’s peace is kept” in his oath of office to the Royal Court.

“We have asked ourselves how we could reach a conclusion that a person could be fit for the office of Connétable, the Father or Mother of the Parish, if found to have driven his car at the legs of a race marshal, using the vehicle as a weapon or at best a form of intimidation, in circumstances where the lower court heard that person’s evidence on oath and did not believe it, and where that person continued to maintain in public that he had not acted in the way the court below had found proved beyond reasonable doubt,” they wrote. 

“While the Court applies its own judgment as to whether a Connétable is fit for office, which we have, any court is bound to test its view by asking itself in a matter of this kind what the public would make of the decision – and in this case, we think that the public would wonder how a court could possibly conclude the Connétable was fit for office in the circumstances described.”

They concluded the Constable’s conduct was “inconsistent” with his oath. “The commission of some criminal offences would not lead to this conclusion, but there comes a point at which the level of criminality is simply inconsistent with the obligation to ensure the peace is kept,” they explained. 

They also noted that “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 Assembly.

The judgment went on to say that, under the Connétable Law 2008, Constable Taylor would be disqualified from standing again and that it would be “a strange conclusion” and “incomprehensible to the public” to let him finish his term of office.

They rejected the view that removing the Constable from office amounted to double jeopardy as the proceedings were disciplinary rather than criminal, and the Relief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take this step. 

They therefore concluded, “with sadness that his years of valuable service to his parish should come to an end in such a way”, that the Constable was not fit for office and directed he should resign.

Constable Taylor will be able to remain in post until an election has taken place.

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 a honorary capacity and “the obvious gaps in any explicit material as to their duties”.

They concluded that Mr Hewlett and Mr Larose should have presented a “keener challenge” to the principles of what the Constable suggested at the outset as to how his defence costs should be met, or by taking advice from the Parish lawyers. They also said they should have asked the Constable to sign an undertaking of his intention to cover any shortfall in the payment. 

The Court reminded procureurs should act “independently” from the Constables and should not approve payments or any other transaction simply because the Constable asked them to.

“This is a difficult area given any personal loyalties and/or fear of giving offence; but it is nevertheless very important. It is also important that the Connétables respect the independence of his or her Procureurs,” they noted.

They recommended the Comité des Connétables establish a “job description” for the role of Procureur, following discussions and consultation with Parish Secretaries, auditors and Procureurs de Bien Publique.

The Court also noted insurance cover should be provided for procureurs acting in good faith, as well as other voluntary parish officials.