This Is Guernsey

By Joel de Woolfson

John Langlois. (0158701)

A HIGH Court action challenging the impartiality of Channel Islands’ judiciaries should be thrown out, according to a senior advocate.
John Langlois, who is also a former conseiller, said the English High Court had no jurisdiction over the Channel Islands and should therefore dismiss the action.
The action is seeking to force Lord Chancellor Jack Straw and the Minister of Justice, Michael Wills, to intervene in the Jersey child- abuse investigation and appoint independent prosecutors and judges to handle the case.
It was lodged at the High Court last week by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming and Jersey senator Stuart Syvret.
They have argued that Jersey’s judiciary is not capable of being adequately impartial because of the island’s close-knit environment.
Senator Syvret claimed the question of objectivity also applied to Guernsey’s legal system.
But Mr Langlois said it had been established for centuries that English courts had no jurisdiction over those in the Channel Islands.
‘I expect that the Lord Chancellor will tell the High Court that it has no jurisdiction,’ he said.
He added that the question of appearing impartial had also been asked of the UK’s judiciary in recent years and he believed the Channel Islands to be in a better position to answer the issue.
‘The Lord Chancellor and any High Court judge will have difficulty believing that the Channel Islands are in a worse position than the UK itself, which has anything but impeccable credentials in this area – in fact just the opposite,’ he said.
‘The position of attorney general in England is a very political one as he is appointed by the prime minister and is a member of the Cabinet.
‘It is unlike that of the Channel Islands, where the Law Officers are appointed by the Queen and are not members of the Guernsey Policy Council or Jersey Council of Ministers.’
Mr Langlois highlighted recent criticism aimed at the attorney general’s political closeness to the UK Government, such as his advice given to the PM about the legality of going to war in Iraq and the lack of prosecutions following the cash for honours inquiry.
‘There have been similar cases in the past in the UK, unlike the Channel Islands,’ he said.
Senator Syvret claimed the Guernsey and Jersey judiciaries would not objectively undertake hearings and come to conclusions that would seriously damage each island’s reputation.
But Mr Langlois categorically disagreed, saying any cover-up would inflict far greater damage than delivering guilty verdicts to those who had committed crimes.
‘Such a verdict would enhance the reputation of the islands and their robust legal systems,’ he said.
The former advocate added that the High Court action was not the correct path and that Senator Syvret should have petitioned the Privy Council instead.
‘Presumably Senator Syvret does not have any confidence in the Lord Chancellor, hence his attempt to circumvent the usual procedure,’ he said.

Article posted on 20th August, 2008 - 2.29pm