AN ATTEMPT by the owners of Brecqhou to have quashed as illegal Sark’s reform law, which will introduce democracy there for the first time in more than 400 years, has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been rejected in the High Court of Justice.
That, however, is not the end of the matter.
It will now move on to the Court of Appeal and possibly the House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights, depending on what happens next in the chain of events.
While yesterday’s judgment is heavy going for non-lawyers, it is of great significance for this Bailiwick because it goes to the heart of the islands’ relationship with the UK and the Crown.
While Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay’s primary target was seeking to establish – but failing to do so – the anomaly in the reform law of the roles of the Seigneur and the president or Seneschal of Sark’s Chief Pleas in the new assembly, they first had to establish the right to be heard.
In that, they were wholly successful and what is believed to be the first island judicial review of the actions of the Secretary of State for Justice, the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and the Privy Council itself went ahead.
In resisting the review, the defendant, effectively the UK Government, unsuccessfully argued that the English High Court was not able to deal with the case because these were Guernsey matters to be dealt with by UK ministers as if on behalf of the Duchy of Normandy.
That obviously begged the question, to whom are ministers accountable if not to their own courts?, and was regarded by lawyers acting for Brecqhou as a substantial boost for CI autonomy.
Another oddity of the hearing was that even if the judge had agreed that the reform law breached human rights as claimed, nothing would have happened. Any remedy – quashing the legislation – would have had to be obtained from the European court and not the courts of England.
That is clearly unsatisfactory and potentially has implications for any islander aggrieved by legislation approved by the States.
There are issues here that evidently need to be resolved.
Article posted on 19th June, 2008 - 10.00am
Case shows issues need resolving
AN ATTEMPT by the owners of Brecqhou to have quashed as illegal Sark’s reform law, which will introduce democracy there for the first time in more than 400 years, has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been rejected in the High Court of Justice.
That, however, is not the end of the matter.
It will now move on to the Court of Appeal and possibly the House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights, depending on what happens next in the chain of events.
While yesterday’s judgment is heavy going for non-lawyers, it is of great significance for this Bailiwick because it goes to the heart of the islands’ relationship with the UK and the Crown.
While Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay’s primary target was seeking to establish – but failing to do so – the anomaly in the reform law of the roles of the Seigneur and the president or Seneschal of Sark’s Chief Pleas in the new assembly, they first had to establish the right to be heard.
In that, they were wholly successful and what is believed to be the first island judicial review of the actions of the Secretary of State for Justice, the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and the Privy Council itself went ahead.
In resisting the review, the defendant, effectively the UK Government, unsuccessfully argued that the English High Court was not able to deal with the case because these were Guernsey matters to be dealt with by UK ministers as if on behalf of the Duchy of Normandy.
That obviously begged the question, to whom are ministers accountable if not to their own courts?, and was regarded by lawyers acting for Brecqhou as a substantial boost for CI autonomy.
Another oddity of the hearing was that even if the judge had agreed that the reform law breached human rights as claimed, nothing would have happened. Any remedy – quashing the legislation – would have had to be obtained from the European court and not the courts of England.
That is clearly unsatisfactory and potentially has implications for any islander aggrieved by legislation approved by the States.
There are issues here that evidently need to be resolved.
Article posted on 19th June, 2008 - 10.00am