Government of 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (16/11/2007) regarding: Response to Scrutiny Role of Centeniers.

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2007-0078
Decision Summary Title :	2007 11 08 DS response to Scrutiny – role of Centeniers		Date of Decision Summary:	08 November 2007
Decision Summary Author:	Heidi Sydor, Executive Officer		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 :	Response to Scrutiny – Role of Centeniers		Date of Written Report:
Written Report Author:	Senator W Kinnard		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	public
Subject: The Role of the Centenier in the Magistrate’s Court - response from the Minister for Home Affairs.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the presentation to the States of her response to the Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel on the Role of the Centenier in the Magistrate’s Court.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister wishes her comments to be presented to the States.
Resource Implications: There is no resource implication to this decision.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to place the Minister’s comments before the States
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Response to Scrutiny - Role of Centeniers.

Home Affairs Department

11 Royal Square

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4WA

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445507

Fax: +44 (0)1534 447933

HAC/DPT/29

Deputy Deidre Mezbourian

Chairman

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Scrutiny Office

States Greffe

Morier House

St.Helier

JE1 1D 7th November 2007

Dear Deputy Mezbourian,

EDUCATION AND HOME AFFAIRS SCRUTINY PANEL REPORT:

THE ROLE OF THE CENTENIER IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Introduction

This review has made a useful contribution to the overall understanding of the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate’s Court and my overall impression is that it has passed inspection.

Findings

Section 8.11: On the understanding that it will promote a synergy between the executive, the judiciary and the prosecution on criminal justice matters, the Panel welcomes the establishment of an informal forum on criminal justice matters.

Response:

I am pleased to have the Scrutiny Panel’s support for the manner in which this important consultation forum has been established.

Section 8.16: During the initial consideration of whether to progress Rutherford Recommendation 4, there was inadequate examination of Human Rights implications.

Response:

The Panel makes this observation with some foundation. However, the draft policy has had regular review from a Human Rights perspective throughout its genesis and I am satisfied that recent examination as a result of the scrutiny process has shown there to be no compelling reason why the Island should establish a Public Prosecution Service.

Section 9.7.9: It is not for the Panel to reach a conclusion as to whether or not Centeniers presenting cases in the Magistrate’s Court is Human Rights compliant; this may only be conclusively decided upon within a court of law.

Response:

The Attorney General has already given detailed consideration to the matter of whether Centeniers presenting cases in the Magistrate’s Court is Human Rights compliant. I have discussed this with him and he will be responding separately. The prosecution role played by the Centenier is deemed to be compliant. The role played by Centenier in some trials has received criticism, but the case that this role is also compliant is defensible.

Section 11.1.14: It is not for the Panel to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the dual role sometimes played by the Magistrate is Human Rights compliant; this may only conclusively be decided within a court of law.

Response:

I have discussed this finding with the Attorney General and he will reply in more detail. Although the dual role sometimes played by the Magistrate in trials involving Centeniers is defensible, the Legal Advisers will now conduct the prosecution in all cases where there is a not guilty plea. Consequently, the Magistrate will no longer have a dual role in trials.

Section 11.2.6: There is a risk of confusion regarding the lines of authority and responsibility for Jersey’s criminal justice system.

Response:

The Attorney General will reply setting out his responsibilities for the prosecution process with which I agree. I am quite clear that, as Minister, I do not have a part to play in the judicial process exercised by the Court. However, since the inception of Ministerial government, I have a responsibility for any criminal justice matter which has policy implications with the exception of sentencing policy which is the preserve of the Court. The forum will give further thought to lines of authority and responsibility in due course.

Recommendations

Section 9.7.10: Detailed consideration should be given by the Attorney General and the Minister for Home Affairs to whether the current system, whereby Centeniers present cases in the Magistrate’s Court, meets the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Accepted.

Section 11.1.15: When considering whether the current system meets the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, particular attention should be paid by the Court Service and the Attorney General to the dual role sometimes played by the Magistrate.

Accepted.

Section 11.2 7: The proposed informal forum to be established as part of the Criminal Justice Policy should ensure that the lines of authority and responsibility for Jersey’s criminal justice system are clearly set out.

Accepted.

Conclusion

I accept the Report’s conclusion. I am particularly pleased that the Panel took as its first guiding principle the need to maintain public confidence in the Honorary Police. Human Rights compliance did emerge as an issue and I agree with the course that this review eventually took that this matter should be flagged up for further consideration.

Yours sincerely,

SENATOR WENDY KINNARD

Minister

Cc: Mrs Anne Harris, States Greffe

Mr Julian Morris, Chief Minister’s Department