Government communications officials have been accused of straying well beyond their lane after politicians were sent instructions telling them not to comment publicly on the Haut du Mont criminal trial.
The Bailiff today agreed the intervention was “inappropriate” and “perhaps high-handed”, making clear that it was not for civil servants working for the executive to tell elected Members how to conduct themselves.
The row was raised in the States by Deputy Montfort Tadier as the major Haut du Mont trial was due to get under way this week.
Deputy Tadier said an initial email was sent from the Chief Executive’s office on Friday advising civil servants not to comment publicly on the proceedings, with States Members copied in.
After he questioned why politicians had received the message, he said it was acknowledged that their inclusion had probably been inappropriate.
But he said that, hours later, a second email from the head of Government communications was sent specifically to States Members, again advising them not to refer to the proceedings.
While Deputy Tadier stressed that he did not have a problem with the substance of the advice, he was concerned about who was issuing it, arguing that having individuals from Government attempting to direct the Assembly risked blurring the constitutional lines between the executive, legislature and courts.
“It is wholly inappropriate for either the Chief Executive or the head of comms for the Government to send instructions to States Members… as to what he or she may be able to say on any matter,” he said.
Deputy Tadier said any guidance deemed necessary should instead have come from the States Greffe or someone within the Assembly with the authority to issue it.
He also raised concerns about parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech, although he acknowledged that restrictions could legitimately apply to comments about ongoing court proceedings.
“Should not have been sent”
Responding to Deputy Tadier’s concerns, the Bailiff, Robert MacRae, agreed that Government had overstepped the mark.
He said the email had “undoubtedly” been sent in good faith and for sincere reasons, but added: “It should not have been sent.”
“It is not appropriate for a civil servant acting on behalf of the executive to tell Members how to conduct themselves in this context,” he said.
The Bailiff said politicians were capable of understanding their responsibilities surrounding criminal trials, while new Members had recently received guidance on the issue during their induction.
Any message from ministers, he added, could have been delivered in a “different tone”, and “certainly a less directive tone”.
However, the Bailiff rejected the suggestion that the intervention had actually infringed parliamentary privilege, pointing out that an email from Government could not limit Members’ freedom of speech.
States rules already prevent politicians from referring to court proceedings in ways which could prejudice an ongoing case, while any comments made outside the States Chamber remain subject to contempt-of-court law.
The Bailiff said the email had effectively done little more than remind Members of those existing obligations.
However, he concluded that sending it in the terms used was “unnecessary and perhaps high-handed”.
Members of the jury were selected for the trial yesterday, and it is due to begin at the newly constructed Jubilee Wharf court this morning.
