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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01/10/2009) regarding: P.119/2009 Comment on Wheel Clamping - Introduction of Legislation.

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2009-0091
Decision Summary Title :	Wheel Clamping P119/2009 – comments		Date of Decision Summary:	01 October 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 :	Wheel Clamping: Introduction of Legislation (P119/2009) – Comments		Date of Written Report:	01 October 2009
Written Report Author:	Minister for Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Comments on Deputy Le Claire’s Proposition – P119/2009 Wheel Clamping: Introduction of Legislation.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the presentation to the States of his comments on Deputy Le Claire’s Proposition P119/2009, and requested that they be presented to the States.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Proposition has been brought with the assistance of the Home Affairs Department. The Minister is supportive of the Proposition, and wishes to add some comments.
Resource Implications: Not known at present, as dependent upon the decision of the States as to whether or not they wish to introduce legislation. Unlikely to be significant.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to present the Minister’s comments to the States in time for the debate on the Proposition on the 6th October 2009.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

P.119/2009 Comment on Wheel Clamping - Introduction of Legislation.

Wheel Clamping: Introduction of Legislation (P.119/2009) – Comments

COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION

I welcome this Proposition which has been brought with the assistance of the Home Affairs Department.

The Home Affairs Department has been considering this area and went out to consultation thereon on 31st July, 2008. It appears that this issue remains the responsibility of the Home Affairs Department because it extends to wheel clamping on private land.

THE EXISTING LAW

I have already publicly expressed the view that the practice of wheel clamping is unlawful, as constituting an unlawful intervention with the rights of the owner or user of the motor vehicle concerned.

That view is supported by the case of Gosselin v. Attorney General [1990 JLR 102]. That case arose from the conviction in the Magistrate’s Court of a wheel clamper for an offence of tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to Article 29(2) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended. Although the conviction was overturned on appeal, that was solely upon the basis that the vehicle was not in a road, public place or place provided for the parking of vehicles within the terms of Article 29. The Royal Court took the view that a private car park was not covered by the terms of Article 29. However, the Royal Court had already found that the accused had prima facie committed the offence of tampering contrary to Article 29 since he had touched the wheel either himself or with the immobilization device and had therefore “tampered” with “part of the mechanism of the vehicle”. Moreover, the act had not been done with lawful authority, since the appellant was under no legal duty to resort to the self-help remedy of wheel clamping, nor, since it was potentially tortious, with reasonable cause.

When a person parks his car without permission on land occupied by another he commits the tort of trespass. Trespass is a civil wrong which is actionable in itself and entitles the occupier of the land to damages. The wheel clamping service amounts to a suggestion that the occupier or his agent may take the law into their own hands and exact damages of their choosing from the trespasser.

The position in Scotland is that by virtue of the case of Black v. Carmichael [1992] SCCR 709 wheel clamping was ruled to be theft and extortion. The reasoning behind this appears to be that in Scottish Law there is a Common Law definition of theft which does not require the mens rea of ‘intention to permanently deprive’. It is my understanding that the Jersey Common Law definition of theft similarly does not require an intention to permanently deprive. Accordingly, in addition to the Gosselin case, the Black v. Carmichael case would be persuasive authority for a Jersey court as to the unlawfulness of wheel clamping.

PRACTICAL ISSUES

There are also very real difficulties in relation to the operation of wheel clamping. There are currently no effective safeguards in relation to the amount to be claimed and no guideline cases from Jersey courts as to the appropriate measure of damages for trespass by parking in the wrong place. Even in England and Wales, where wheel clamping is lawful, there are severe difficulties with the system being operated fairly. I have attached to these comments the recent criticisms of the AA.

During my period as Magistrate, the Petty Debts Court upon the suggestion of one of the Relief Magistrates, stopped giving judgment to a business which issued civil penalties on behalf of the occupier of land, pending a trial of such a case. It was clear to me that the businesses which issued civil penalties did not want there to be a trial because whenever such a claim was resisted, the claim was dropped by them.

MY PREFERRED OPTION

If wheel clamping were to become a criminal offence as suggested by this Proposition, then the occupiers of land could still use agents to issue civil penalty notices making a claim for damages for the trespass. There could then be a trial before the Petty Debts Court, which could be subject to appeal to the Royal Court, and the principles of Law together with the appropriate level of damages to be claimed could thus be clarified.

Furthermore, it would be possible for the Home Affairs Minister, after consultation with judges, to issue a Code of Practice for people issuing civil penalties which would provide some regulation thereof. In particular, any business which failed to comply with the Code of Practice could be denied access to the registration details of motor vehicles, thus making their task impossible.

The alternative is a new piece of legislation in relation to the regulation of the whole area. This will prove to be surprisingly complicated and controversial and I have already indicated to my Scrutiny Panel that I have no specific law drafting time for this and would be unlikely to be able to properly consider this before 2011.

THE OTHER OPTIONS

If wheel clamping is not banned then, unless other options are followed, the present situation of free for all will continue.

The other option would be for legislation to be passed making wheel clamping lawful subject to appropriate safeguards. The concerns of the AA in relation to this will need to be dealt with and such legislation will be complicated.

The route taken in Guernsey which is described in the report to Deputy Tadier’s amendment is another form of civil penalty system. The Law specifies the standard level of penalty. However, it requires an application to be made to the Guernsey Royal Court in relation to each piece of land.

SUMMARY

I support this Proposition and believe that, after wheel clamping has been banned, a Code of Practice regulating the issuing of civil penalty notices will be the appropriate way forward.

However, if this proposition is defeated then I will take that as an indication that the States wish wheel clamping to continue to be allowed and a new piece of legislation, which will also be complicated, will be required in order to provide appropriate safeguards along the English model.