This Is Guernsey

THE owners of Brecqhou took their campaign to root out ‘relics of feudalism’ in Sark to London’s High Court yesterday.

Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay argued that proposed changes to the island’s constitution – approved by the Queen last month – do not go far enough and amount to a violation of human rights. They also object strongly to the continued role in government of Seigneur Michael Beaumont and the Seneschal, Lt-Colonel Reg Guille.

And they say it flies in the face of European and human rights laws that ‘aliens’ will still not be able to stand for election to Chief Pleas. Their barrister, David Pannick QC, told Mr Justice Wyn Williams that the UK Government is ‘answerable to Strasbourg for violations of the European convention that take place within Sark and is obliged to ensure that the Sark authorities respect the rights guaranteed by the European Convention’.

The brothers are challenging the Privy Council’s decision to recommend to the Queen that she should approve the constitutional reforms, which were adopted by an order in council on 9 April. They are joined in their challenge by Sark resident Thomas Slivnic, who, even after the reforms, will be prevented from standing for election to Chief Pleas as he is a Slovenian national and viewed as an ‘alien’.

Mr Pannick said: ‘For many years, the Barclay brothers have sought to secure amendments to the laws and practices of Sark to remove relics of feudalism and to make those laws and practices compatible with the European Convention [on Human Rights]’.

Although the Barclays themselves are not viewed as ‘aliens’ in the island, Mr Pannick said they are nevertheless ‘victims’ of the reforms as they will be unable to vote for Mr Slivnic, or any other ‘alien’ who wants to be elected to Chief Pleas.

He said that even after the reforms, which are due to take effect in December, the Seigneur will continue to enjoy wide powers as the effective ‘head of state’ in the island and as an unelected member of Chief Pleas.

The Seneschal, who is appointed permanently by the Seigneur, would also continue in his central role as the island’s ‘sole judge’ and as president of Chief Pleas.

The barrister argued: ‘The reform law does not guarantee the right to elect a legislature which will ensure the free expression of the people because two of its members, the Seigneur and the Seneschal, are unelected and hold significant powers with Chief Pleas.’

The reforms, adopted after intensive debate and a referendum of islanders, are being defended by lawyers representing the Privy Council, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey.

Another ‘constitutional defect’ in the reforms, Mr Pannick argued, is that the Seigneur will retain his right to an annual index-linked stipend to cover his expenses and salary.

The barrister told the judge that was against the law ‘because it awards expenses and a salary to the Seigneur for performing a role which is unlawful’.

Referring to the ‘considerable concentration of political power in the Seneschal’, Mr Pannick said any litigant appearing before him in court ‘is entitled to have legitimate fears as to the appearance of independence’.

However, defending the reforms on behalf of the UK Government, Jonathan Crow QC, pointed out that Sark is a ‘dependency of the Bailiwick of Guernsey’ and, while the UK is responsible for the island’s international relations and defence, Sark is not part of the UK.

He said it was not disputed that reform was needed and many different constitutional models had been considered and rejected by Chief Pleas since 1999. He said it was likely that further reform would be ‘considered desirable’ in relation to the ancient offices of Seigneur and Seneschal. But the UK Government wanted to respect the island’s autonomy and was happy to leave such changes to the reformed Chief Pleas.

The hearing is expected to conclude today.

Article posted on 22nd May, 2008 - 2.29pm