Ask No Questions........

Following the controversial decision of Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, to write a cheque to the tune of £10,000 to enable "Equality of Arms" to the three policemen involved in disciplinary proceedings concerning the bugging of convicted drug dealer Curtis Warren's gang member's car. Deputy Mike Higgins submitted an "urgent question" to be asked in the island's parliament.

For our overseas readers who might not understand how Jersey does "Democracy" it is worth explaining that any questions submitted to the island's parliament by a democratically elected politician has to be vetted and agreed by the Bailiff before they (questions) are "allowed" to be asked.

The Bailiff is unelected Head of the Judiciary and Chief Judge. So before a "democratically" elected member of the legislator can ask a question, in the parliament, it has to be "allowed" by the "unelected" Head of the Judiciary............Democracy a la Jersey.

The three Police Officers, who were severely criticised for their actions by the Supreme Court, faced a "secret" disciplinary Hearing and were cleared of any wrong doing. The Law Officers (judiciary), as a result of the police's disciplinary hearing have now been severely criticised themselves and in particular the Attorney General Tim Le Cocq.

Politicians wishing to ask questions have to submit their questions, no later than, midday on Thursday's before the State Sitting on the following Tuesday. However it was too late to lodge a question surrounding the £10,000 "Equality of Arms" cheque written by the Home Affairs Minister as it wasn't made public until after midday Thursday. So Deputy Higgins lodged what is known as an "urgent question."

The Deputy's question was aimed at Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, who, prior to being elected, was himself a member of the Judiciary for some thirty years.......(coincidentally!)

The question submitted reads;

"Will the Minister justify to the States his decision to grant £10,000 to the defence of three police officers who were severely criticised for unlawful activity by the Privy Council on the grounds of Equality of Arms whilst denying similar support to the [former] Chief of Police Graham Power in his dispute and the States which fails to provide similar support to Public Servants facing disciplinary hearings"(END)

Regular readers and readers of our PREVIOUS POSTING will be aware that the Former Chief Police Officer, Graham Power QPM, was denied "Equality of Arms" by the same Home Affairs Minister.

The "urgent question" was submitted but the Bailiff (Head of Judiciary and unelected Chief Judge) disallowed it and here is his reasoning.

We apply a three-fold test to urgent questions. This question meets the first test in that is a matter of significant public interest and I assume for the moment – although I would need confirmation – that the second test is met, in that the matter has arisen since the deadline for oral questions. However I do not consider that the third aspect is met, namely that the matter is so urgent that it would be inappropriate to expect the member to wait till the next sitting to ask the question. The question can perfectly reasonably be asked at the next meeting. Leave is therefore refused.(END)

This set of events throws up a number of questions, none of which will be asked by the State Media, so is left to Bloggers (Jersey's only independent media).

Firstly we must question the ruling of the unelected Bailiff. "The question can perfectly reasonably be asked at the next meeting." We could argue that the ruling could be levelled at just about "any" urgent question and particularly if the judiciary didn't want it asked and is pretty flimsy considering it is preventing a "democratically" elected member of parliament attempting to hold the executive to account and thus serving the public.

We must then ask, seeing as though the judiciary has been so heavily criticised, as a result of the Police's disciplinary hearing, isn't the Bailiff heavily conflicted as his loyalties could lay with the Judiciary and might want to protect it/them or at least it could be viewed that way?

The over-arching questions are; how can it be in a supposed 21st century "democracy" that the unelected Judiciary have so much power over our "democratically" elected politicians? How many other urgent questions have been blocked by the unelected judiciary? How many written and oral questions have been blocked by the judiciary.......on flimsy grounds? How many propositions/amendments have been blocked by the unelected Judiciary? What impact has this had on our so-called "Democracy?" How can it be said that the politicians (Legislator) are running the island when it is decided by the unelected Judiciary as to what our Elected Members can, and can't ask?