ONE of the inevitable outcomes of the debate about Sark, its democracy and the adequacy or otherwise of its Reform Law is how the island – especially after the length of time it has taken to get there – now finds that the legislation is deficient, at least regarding the role of the Seneschal.

That, the UK Government has conceded, is not human rights compliant and it may well be if Brecqhou’s next appeal is successful that other elements are not either.

Whatever the outcome, Chief Pleas now faces having to reform a brand new Reform Law and the question is how it got it wrong in the first place. Sark receives legal advice from Guernsey’s Crown Officers, although it is possible they did not take it, but the Crown Officers supported the Seneschal’s role because one of Guernsey’s Crown advocates sat through the UK Appeal Court case on the Government’s side in the place where the instructing solicitor would normally sit.

What the result of the case does is to highlight the inherently conflicting interests of St James’s Chambers as Crown appointees.

The Isle of Man has looked at the role of its attorney general, equivalent to Guernsey’s HM Procureur, and was told very clearly by the Home Office where loyalties lie.

‘There can… be no real dispute that as a Crown Officer the Attorney-General is subject to the instructions of the Secretary of State and of the Lt-Governor, and owes his first allegiance to the Crown.’

That view, restated by the Isle of Man as recently as 2005, emphasises the difficult role the Crown Officers have here as legal advisers to the States of Guernsey: on whose behalf are they advising?

Guernsey was under intense political pressure from the Ministry of Justice to resolve the Sark democracy issue and the law to do so was drafted under the auspices of those appointed by the MoJ and ultimately ratified on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who happens to be the department minister.

If the Seneschal cannot be seen as impartial because of his potentially conflicting roles, can the Crown Officers really be seen as independent legal advisers to the States of Guernsey?