Jersey Law Commission: Appointment of Commissioner

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 30 August 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-C-2013-0091
Decision Summary Title :	Jersey Law Commission: Appointment of Commissioner		Date of Decision Summary:	9th August 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Project and Research 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 :	Jersey Law Commission: Appointment of Commissioner		Date of Written Report:	9th August 2013
Written Report Author:	Project and Research Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Jersey Law Commission: Appointment of Commissioner
Decision(s): The Deputy Chief Minister approved the report and proposition recommending Mr. Andrew Philip Le Sueur as Commissioner of the Jersey Law Commission for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of appointment by the States.
Reason(s) for Decision: The States, by Act dated 30th July 1996, adopted a Proposition of the Legislation Committee and approved the establishment of a Jersey Law Commission. The Deputy Chief Minister nominates Mr Andrew Philip Le Sueur to be appointed to serve as Commissioner of the Jersey Law Commission.
Resource Implications: There are no financial nor manpower implications associated with this decision.
Action required: The Greffier of the States to be requested to lodge ‘au Greffe’ the Proposition for debate by the States at the earliest opportunity.
Signature:		Position: Deputy Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Jersey Law Commission: Appointment of Commissioner

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

to refer to their Act, dated 30th July 1996, in which they approved the establishment of a Jersey Law Commission, and to appoint Mr. Andrew Philip Le Sueur as Commissioner of the Jersey Law Commission for a period of 5 years with immediate effect.

CHIEF MINISTER

REPORT

The States, by Act dated 30th July 1996, adopted a Proposition of the Legislation Committee and approved the establishment of a Jersey Law Commission.

The Commission is an independent body that works in close consultation with the Legislation Advisory Panel, which organises its funding and acts as its channel of communication with the States. The Commission’s role is to identify aspects of Jersey law which it considers should be examined with a view to their development and reform, including in particular the elimination of anomalies, the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reductions of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law.

Mr Andrew Philip Le Sueur is being appointed as an additional Commissioner. There is evidence that there is a sufficient workload that calls for an additional Commissioner to be appointed.

The Chief Minister therefore nominates Mr. Andrew Philip Le Sueur to be appointed to serve as Commissioner of the Jersey Law Commission for a period of 5 years with immediate effect.

Andrew Philip Le Sueur

Andrew Philip Le Sueur was born in Jersey in 1964 and was educated at Trinity, Les Quennevais and Hautlieu Schools.

He graduated from the University of London (London School of Economics) in 1986 with a LLB Hons degree (first class). He qualified as a barrister and completed pupillage. He has taught at UCL (1988-2000), at the University of Birmingham as Barber Professor of Jurisprudence (2001-2006), at Queen Mary, University of London (2006-2013) and since August 2013 he is Professor of Constitutional Justice at the University of Essex. His publications include de Smith’s Judicial Review (7th edn, 2013) with Lord Woolf and Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC.

Professor Le Sueur has taken a leading role in setting up the Institute of Law in Jersey, acting as director of studies (2009-13).

Alongside his academic career, he has a small private practice at the English Bar (mostly advising on draft legislation and constitutional, administrative law and human rights issues) and was elected a Bencher of Middle Temple in 2011. He was the legal adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee (2009-11) and has served as a specialist adviser for several House of Lords and House of Commons select committee inquiries.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this Proposition.