Road Traffic (No. 59) (Jersey) Regulations

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (14.08.2009) to approve the draft Road Traffic (No. 59) (Jersey) Regulations.

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2009-0080
Decision Summary Title :	Road Traffic (No 59) (Jersey) Regulations 200-		Date of Decision Summary:	10 August 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home 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 :	Report to accompany Road Traffic (No.59) (Jersey) Regulations 200-		Date of Written Report:	20 July 2009
Written Report Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Road Traffic (No.59) (Jersey) Regulations 200-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the draft Road Traffic (No.59) (Jersey) Regulations 200- and the accompanying report. The Minister requested that the Regulations be lodged ‘au Greffe’ with a view to securing the first available date for debate.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Regulations will amend the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, to enable the police to request a medical practitioner to take a sample of blood from a person who is unable to give consent (because they are unconscious for example). This would be in circumstances where the police are investigating a suspected offence and where, but for the incapacity, the police would have had grounds for requesting a sample of breath. It is anticipated that the Regulations will assist in the investigation of offences under the Road Traffic Law.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs to request the Greffier of the States to lodge the Regulations ‘au Greffe’ as soon as possible.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Road Traffic (No. 59) (Jersey) Regulations

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY ROAD TRAFFIC (No. 59) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 200-

The effect of these Regulations is to amend the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 to enable the police to request a medical practitioner to take a sample of blood from a person who is unable to give consent, in circumstances where the police are investigating a suspected offence and where, but for the incapacity, the police would have grounds for requesting a specimen of breath.

The need for the amendment to the principal Law was first recommended by the former Solicitor General in 2006 following several road traffic incidents, which came to the attention of the Law Officers’ Department, where alcohol was believed to have been a contributing factor in the accident.

The reason for the amendment to the law is best demonstrated by way of example:

A motorcyclist is involved in an accident. The police officer who attends the scene of the accident smells alcohol on the motorcyclist’s breath. The motorcyclist’s journey is captured on CCTV, and the film is viewed by the police doctor, who gives it as his opinion that the motorcyclist appears grossly unfit to drive a motor vehicle.

On arrival at hospital the motorcyclist is unconscious, and remains so for several days. Had the motorcyclist been conscious, the police would have been able to ask for a specimen of breath/blood. If the specimen had been given, and shown the motorcyclist to be over the prescribed limit he could have been prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol in his blood stream; had he refused to provide a specimen, he could have been prosecuted for failing to supply a specimen. Because the motorcyclist is unconscious, however, any prosecution can only rely on the CCTV footage and the evidence of the police officer who smelt alcohol on his breath because the law does not currently permit a sample to be taken from someone who is incapable of giving consent for the purpose of analysis and for use in evidence against the person from whom the blood has been taken.

In the UK, the situation is regulated by section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which, subject to the conditions set out in the section, allows a police officer to request a medical practitioner to take a blood sample from a person incapable of consenting in circumstances where the person has been involved in an accident connected to the matter under police investigation and, but for the incapacity, the officer would be entitled under the relevant statutory powers to request the provision of a specimen.

In Guernsey there is provision under the Road Traffic (Drink Driving) Guernsey Law 1989, as amended, for specimens of blood to be taken from persons incapable of consenting.

It is anticipated that these Regulations will assist in the investigation of offences under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Consultation on the draft Regulations has been carried out with the States of Jersey Police, the Comité des Connétables and the Health and Social Services Department.

The requirement for a certificate of compatibility with the Convention rights under Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 does not apply to draft Regulations. However, the advice received from the Law Officers’ Department is that if such a statement were required, it could be made.

There are no financial or manpower implications resulting from the Regulations.

20 July 2009