LAW BREAKING

[Ruddler]

You may have heard already but Geoffrey Southern was fined £10k or time in jug this afternoon.  Shona Pitman was fined £2k or time in jug.  Not surprisingly both elected to go down the cashpoint rather than up to La Moye.

Can we now expect them to do the honorable thing and offer themselves for re-election?  What will the response of PPC be to such a breach of the Code of Conduct - probably ask them nicely not to do it again.

[mpwpj]

They got off lightly.  I think they should've faced ejection and faced their elctorate again.  At the very least they should've been suspended, if only from conviction to sentencing.

[rogueelement]

Managed to make it back in time to vote against jobs for the people then?
Sickening!

Perhaps the most useless , apart from Syvret in a house of ineffective, self serving dilletantes.
How can they maintain any credibility amongst their captured voting public?
Useless , useless people, can they not be fired for gross abuse of priviledge?

[Ruddler]

Here be the relevant Standing Order:

SCHEDULE 3[68]

(Standing Order 155)

Code of Conduct for elected members

1        Purpose of the code

The purpose of the code of conduct is to assist elected members in the discharge of their obligations to the States, their constituents and the public of Jersey. All elected members are required, in accordance with standing orders, to comply with this code.

2        Public duty

The primary duty of elected members is to act in the interests of the people of Jersey and of the States. In doing so, members have a duty to uphold the law in accordance with their oath of office and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

I think Public Duty requirements about covers it.  TBH I don't think we should get too precious about this but it will be an interesting test of PPC and whether they have the gumption to take some positive action.  As an aide-memoire, the Members of PPC are:

 Chairman
Connétable Juliette Gallichan

Members
Senator Bryan Ian Le Marquand
Deputy John Benjamin Fox
Deputy Judith Ann Martin
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré
Deputy Montfort Tadier
Deputy Michael Roderick Higgins

I'm already thinking a 4 - 3 vote in favour of some sanctions but really hope I'm proved wrong.  I'd expect a unanimous decision for a suspension motion to be put before the States.  As Stuart Syvret constantly reminds us, he was suspended for 6 months many years ago for being horrid about Reg Jeune - what price real law breaking, particularly something that goes to the heart of the electoral process?

[stoneface]

How can a politician who deliberately breaks the law to get elected claim any legitimacy? Either as a legislator, or as the rightful representative of their constituency?

If I break the law in order to gain employment it would be a sackable offence, even if I was the person my employers really wanted. The option to sack/re-employ should be given to their employers.

[Deputy Dawg]

How can a politician who deliberately breaks the law to get elected claim any legitimacy? Either as a legislator, or as the rightful representative of their constituency?

If I break the law in order to gain employment it would be a sackable offence, even if I was the person my employers really wanted. The option to sack/re-employ should be given to their employers.

I totally agree, and as the voting public are his "employers" they should have been given the option to sack or re-employ them via a re-election.

[mpwpj]

How can a politician who deliberately breaks the law to get elected claim any legitimacy? Either as a legislator, or as the rightful representative of their constituency?

If I break the law in order to gain employment it would be a sackable offence, even if I was the person my employers really wanted. The option to sack/re-employ should be given to their employers.

Very well put.

[Ruddler]

I see the JDA2 are now going to challenge this Law in the States but it seems to me they have a couple of difficult hurdles:

P65/2008 which brought the amendment to the Law had a certificate attached to it - all new draft laws have to have it.  Which says that iaw Art 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law the provisions of the proposed Law are compatible with the Convention Rights.  And they only give that certificate I think (I might be wrong though, its not exactly my field!) with the approval of the Law Draftsman.

They bang on about Art 39A, being the one they infringed.  Now I copy below the full provisions of that Article, as opposed to the  partial recitation of it you get from the JDA2 when pleading "principle":

“39A Candidate or representative not to interfere with application for registration

(1)     A candidate, or a representative of a candidate shall not –

(a)     complete, on behalf of a person entitled under Article 38, or assist such a person in completing, any form required to be completed for the purposes of an application under Article 39(4);

(b)     deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the Judicial Greffier, on behalf of a such a person, any form or supporting documents required for the purposes of an application under Article 39(4); or

(c)     provide transport for such a person so as to enable the person to make an application in person under Article 39(4).

(2)     Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a candidate or representative of a candidate providing a person entitled under Article 38 with the form (if any) required to make an application under Article 39(4)(a).”.

Now para 2 seems to me to say they can give a person a form and won't be in breach of the Law.  The only things a candidate can't do is (i) help them fill it in or (ii) take it away for them to the Judicial Greffe.  What is the big point of principle in that?  Sorry I think they've been rumbled and when in a hole, the usual response is to stop digging.  I hope the States see through their shabby attempt to subvert a democratic vote.  And, just because other jurisdictions don't have a similar provision doesn't make ours wrong - we may well have a process far less susceptible to manipulation than others and are all the better for it.

[imacrappaud]

Have i read the above wrong or does it mean that you can be a bean, have worked all your life, be unabe to transport yourself to vote and unfortunately may have no one to take you to vote, that apart from a states member who you may or may not vote for you basically have no say in island politics or a right to vote?

[Dylan]

You lost me after "bean"...........................

[Ruddler]

Imac, I think what it means is that the candidate has to say to the voter "look I'm allowed to give you the form but I can't assist you to fill it in.  I can't take it to the Judicial Greffier if you fill it in or someone else helps you to."  What the candidate should then do is offer to arrange for someone from the parish or the Judicial Greffe to call on the voter to help them apply for the postal vote.  In this way, there is no possibility of the vote being unduly influenced or, as someone on another blog might say, allowing the perception that it might have been.

I honestly don't see what the problem is here.  It's a protection for the integrity of the ballot, not to assist the candidates to try and unduly influence elderly or vulnerable potential voters, although in the JDA2 case there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they tried to do that.

Not sure what being a bean has to do with anything though?  Anyone with 2 or more years residence can generally register to vote I believe.  Have to say, as a bean myself I always vote if only to try and keep out those whose policies I object to, not always successfully I'm afraid!  Democracy, ya gotta love it...........................

[imacrappaud]

so by your reply GB, as ignorant as it is, i suppose you couldnt give a toss about the elderly who have lived here all their lives and get shat upon by the states.

[imacrappaud]

Just in case my punctuation put you off i will rephrase it

Have i read the above wrong or does it mean that you can be a bean, have worked all your life, be unabe to transport yourself to vote and unfortunately may have no one to take you to vote, that, apart from a states member, who you may or may not vote for. You basically have no say in island politics or a right to vote?

Is that better, or do you still want to offer an ignorant response?

[Ruddler]

Sorry, not all elderly people are incapable of registering to vote and my Nan managed to vote postally from her nursing home aged over 90, and with the help of the staff without a candidate of any sort in sight.  Probably voted JDA mind you, she was way to the left of me.  Of course, everyone who can motivate themselves to register to vote gets a say in Island politics, if they bother to exercise it.  I'm sorry but I don't see the issue here - are you saying you'd like States members, who are standing for re-election, to be able to "assist" voters without limit?  I thought we were trying to get away from that kind of thing?  I agree we maybe should have more assistance for elderly/infirm voters from the Parish authorities or the Judicial Greffe but as far as I am aware that help is available on request and is IMHO preferrable to assistance from candidates of any stripe.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to differ on this one?!

[Fritz]

If the old and infirm were determined enough to use their franchise, I,m sure they would find a way without the help of candidates.