This Is Guernsey

By Nick Mann

Duncan Barclay shakes hands with one of the 50 or so of the Barclays’ workers who protested outside Chief Pleas over the adoption of the Reform Law.

SARK’S democratic reforms reflect the will of the majority of residents, according to the island’s seneschal, Reg Guille.

Royal assent has been granted to legislation that ends feudal rule and moves the island towards democracy.

But that decision by the Privy Council is being challenged in the High Court by Brecqhou owners Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay. One reason for that is the continuing dual role of the seneschal as the island’s judge and president of its government, Chief Pleas. Mr Guille said that was a matter for Chief Pleas.

‘The reform law reflects the will of the public. The seigneur and seneschal role and all the other matters in the reform law are as the majority of this island request,’ he said.

‘As to what Chief Pleas does in the future, that’s a matter for Chief Pleas, not for me. I’m a servant of Chief Pleas, not its master.’

He said the judicial review would not slow progress towards making sure subordinate legislation is in place for the election in December.

It will be the first time that Sark’s government has not included seats reserved for landowners.

‘I think that the majority of people in Sark and in Chief Pleas will be delighted that at last we have received royal assent,’ said Mr Guille.

The reform law has been work in progress for eight years and the associated property tax law has been for more than two.

An extraordinary meeting of Chief Pleas should take place next month to discuss the next stages.

Mr Guille declined to comment further on the judicial review. But not everyone in Sark is happy that his job, and that of the seigneur, has not been dealt with at this stage.

Tenant John Donnelly is supporting Sir David and Sir Frederick’s challenge.

‘The seigneur himself had expressed in correspondence the view that his role should be changed, yet he never mentioned that in Chief Pleas,’ said Mr Donnelly.

‘There was a willingness, I think, for the seigneur to amend his role but the seneschal seemed to be hard and fast that he should retain or even strengthen his position.’

He said the seneschal’s dual role was not human rights-compliant.

Sir David’s and Sir Frederick’s advocate Gordon Dawes said a challenge by judicial review was essentially saying that the decision was unlawful either because it was a true error in law or so unreasonable or irrational that again it was unlawful – that it was outside the decision-makers’ margin of appreciation or discretion.

The challenge relies on both arguments, saying that the roles of the seigneur and seneschal are contrary to the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and that, serious concerns having arisen about those offices, it was then irrational to give royal assent without reforming those offices.

Seigneur Michael Beaumont was unavailable for comment.