Review of Access to Justice in Jersey

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 2 December 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-C-2013-0144
Decision Summary Title :	Proposition and Report – Review of Access to Justice in Jersey		Date of Decision Summary:	29th November 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Director, International Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Access to Justice in Jersey: review		Date of Written Report:	29th November 2013
Written Report Author:	Director, International Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Proposition and Report – Review of Access to Justice in Jersey
Decision(s): The Chief Minister agreed to lodge ‘au Greffe’ a Proposition and Report regarding a Review of Access to Justice in Jersey for debate by the States at the earliest opportunity
Reason(s) for Decision: The Council of Ministers considered this matter on 27th November 2013 and agreed that the draft terms of reference should be lodged by the Chief Minister for consideration by the States Assembly, and that the members of the Advisory Panel who will work with the Chair should be appointed by ballot.
Resource Implications: There are no additional manpower or financial implications at this initial stage. There may be a need to engage some external support in due course to assist with the production of the interim-report, but this would be funded from within existing limits set by the Medium Term Financial Plan, as would other costs associated with the initial stage of the review. Once the interim-report has been submitted within 6 months of the work commencing, then the possible financial and manpower implications of options for future change should become clearer. The terms of reference proposed includes the requirement to consider the delivery of value for money in the use of public funds.
Action required: The Greffier of the States to be requested to lodge ‘au Greffe’ the Proposition and Report - Access to Justice in Jersey: review, for debate by the States at the earliest opportunity.
Signature:		Position: Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Review of Access to Justice in Jersey

Access to Justice in Jersey: review

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

(a) to agree the proposed Terms of Reference, Methodology and Membership for a Review of Access to Justice in Jersey, as detailed in section 2 of the accompanying Report of the Chief Minister dated [States Greffe to insert lodging date];

(b) to agree, that immediately following the adoption of this proposition, the States should appoint by open ballot as members of the Advisory Panel (through separate ballots as required) –

(i) one member who is a Minister or Assistant Minister;

(ii) one Connétable;

(iii) 2 elected members who are not Ministers or Assistant Ministers

CHIEF MINISTER

REPORT

1. Background

1.1 Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013)

The Chief Minister lodged a Proposition regarding Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013) in July 2013. The Proposition clarified that the Chief Minister is responsible within the executive branch of government for policy and resources in relation to the overall justice system, the Legislation Advisory Panel, safeguarding human rights, data protection, legal services, constitutional reform, and strengthening democracy. The Proposition was decided upon by the States Assembly on 25th September 2013 (Pour 39; Contre 4; Abstain 0).

1.2 Access to justice review

During the debate in the States Assembly on 25th September 2013 regarding Justice Policy and Resources: Responsibility (P.92/2013), the Chief Minister stated his intention to commission a review into access to justice in Jersey and his belief that this was likely to be a lengthy but important piece of work.

1.3 Developing a draft terms of reference

Following some initial exchanges between the Chief Minister’s Department and the Law Officer’s Department, a meeting was convened on 11th October 2013 involving a number of the people now proposed as members of the Expert Group, in order to seek their views on the development of a draft terms of reference and methodology. In addition, the Chief Minister held an informal discussion on this topic on 25th October 2013 with Deputy Tadier and Deputy Young who had requested a meeting in order to convey their thoughts regarding the terms of reference. This resulted in an initial draft terms of reference, which were considered by the Council of Ministers on 27th November 2013. The Council agreed that the draft terms of reference should be presented by the Chief Minister for consideration by the States Assembly and that the members of the Advisory Panel who will work with the Chair should be proposed for election by ballot.

2. Draft Terms of Reference, Methodology and Membership

2.1 Terms of Reference:

To undertake a review of access to justice in Jersey, including a review of legal aid, which will:

a) provide a comprehensive and factual description of the current legal aid scheme;

b) examine the scope for alternative approaches;

c) make proposals for developing further an efficient and effective legal system, which would improve access to justice and the resolution of complaints, whilst delivering value for money in the use of public funds;

d) result in an interim-report being submitted to the Chief Minister within 6 months of the work commencing, and a final report being presented to the Chief Minister within 12 months of the date of the interim-report.

2.2 Methodology

In undertaking the review, those participating, with assistance as required, will:

a) take a broad interpretation of access to justice so as to include general advice through to court representation in criminal and civil matters, including child care proceedings;

b) consult widely, gather evidence from the public and interested parties, and compare Jersey’s legal system, including the use of alternative dispute resolution and tribunals, and the jurisdiction of the courts, with comparable systems;

c) consider issues in relation to the affordability of access to justice and different models of funding litigation and providing legal representation;

d) be mindful that the availability of a high quality, efficient and independent legal profession, accompanied by an effective system to handle complaints, is of critical importance in sustaining access to justice and the rule of law;

e) have regard to the potential impact of any recommendations on the users of legal services, public funds, the legal profession and the tradition of honorary service in Jersey;

f) consider competition, price, and other market based factors as they affect affordability, access to justice and the provision of legal aid in Jersey; and

g) ensure that proposals would provide public confidence in legal aid in terms of eligibility, human rights compatibility, and public expenditure.

2.3 Membership of the Advisory Panel

The Advisory Panel will be Chaired by Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E. and will comprise four other Members of the States Assembly (in addition to the Chair) to include those holding both executive and non-executive roles, at least one of whom will hold a position of Connétable.

2.4 Membership of the Expert Group

The Expert Group will be Chaired by the Chief Minister’s Department and will consist of one or more representatives from the following, or as otherwise agreed by the Chief Minister:

Law Officers’ Department;
Judicial Greffe;
The Law Society of Jersey;
The offices of the Bâtonnier and Acting Bâtonnier;
Jersey Chamber of Commerce;
Citizens Advice Bureau;
Jersey Consumer Council.

3. Chief Minister’s Nominees for the Advisory Panel

The Chief Minister’s nominees for the Advisory Panel to be Chaired by Senator Paul Francis Routier M.B.E. are as follows:

Senator Lyndon John Farnham;
Connétable Juliette Gallichan;
Deputy Montfort Tadier;
Deputy John Hilary Young.

4. Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional manpower or financial implications at this initial stage. There may be a need to engage some external support in due course to assist with the production of the interim-report, but this would be funded from within existing limits set by the Medium Term Financial Plan, as would other costs associated with the initial stage of the review.

Once the interim-report has been submitted within 6 months of the work commencing, then the possible financial and manpower implications of options for future change should become clearer. The terms of reference proposed includes the requirement to consider the delivery of value for money in the use of public funds.

ENDS