Keeping you in the dark
Thursday 28th February 2013, 12:00PM GMT.
HOME’S argument for keeping secret how much public money was spent in a bungled raid on law firm AFR was cast into doubt yesterday as it emerged there was no confidentiality clause in the court order for the case.
And its minister Jonathan Le Tocq, pictured, left a series of key questions unanswered after facing sustained challenges in the States about the board’s refusal to release details of the settlement reached with the firm of advocates – or even the legal fees incurred.
Following the confirmation that no confidentiality clause existed in the court order, the Guernsey Press asked HM Procureur and HM Comptroller why damages and costs could not be released.
A Law Officers’ representative said: ‘The confidentiality arrangement was negotiated with the chief of police and he has already stated that the arrangement covered keeping the damages and costs confidential.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Friday 24 May
- Aurigny looking at jet option
- Win a holiday in Paris
- Lookback - Wrecked on Gross Rocque
- Channel Islands news
- Simpson beaten by squash no. 1
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Busted.
So RICE made the decision to keep this from the public to avoid further humiliation for him and his men – not the courts.
So the only question remaining now is, is he as a very high profile public servant actually permitted to do this or is this going to end up being another bungled attempt which will backfire?
This also proves my point that the Home department were just trying to cover his arse.
Bloody disgraceful.
Report abuse
Rambo rice made the decision to hush it up, and the secrecy is the biggest scandal in my opinion, but don’t forget all this happen on the previous police chiefs watch – nothing to do with Rambo.
Report abuse
If theLaw Office quote is accurate then does this mean the only person being protected is the Police Chief?
If yes, why and how can this be in the public interest?
If no, what exactly does the statement mean in ordinary English?
Report abuse
Since when does the Chief of Police negotiate secretive settlement conditions on behalf of tax payers. Something doesn’t smell quite right here
Report abuse
It was not on behalf of the taxpayer, it was on behalf of the Home Departments insurance policy which covers these things.
Report abuse
Will the premium go up which the tax payer pays for?
Report abuse
Dave Jones, forgive my ignorance but can you clarify please. If this payout was negotiated on behalf on the Home Departments insurance policy, who actually paid the settlement to AFR – the Home Department or an Insurance Company?
Report abuse
Given the statement in the States yesterday it would seem it was the insurers.
Report abuse
Taxpayers will foot the bill as its under the insurance excess threshold.
Report abuse
Dave
Forgive me if I’m wrong but didn’t this fall short of the insurance policy?
Report abuse
Perhaps someone might be minded to write to HM Greffier and request a copy given it seems to have been filed in open court.
Interesting that a “representative” said it was “stated” to be confidential – does that imply the agreement itself says no such thing?!
Report abuse
The Seven Principles of Public Life enunciated by the Nolan Committee:
Selflessness
Integrity
Objectivity
Accountability
Openness
Honesty
Leadership
Are there ANY standards of accountability in Guernsey?
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
Report abuse
This is going to come up with all the uproar. So if theres no confidentiallity clause AFR should come out and tell everyone so teh states are shown for the joke that they are!
Why oh why are civil servants so protected when they do a bad job
Report abuse
Im afraid its on a need to know basis only.
Wy is that?
Well Rice decided Guernsey didnt need to know.
End of.
Report abuse
I don’t agree with the way this has been done but actually do agree with the reasoning behind it.
If the amount paid out became public knowledge then this would set a precedent going forward.
Sadly we live in a culture that is all too ready to sue and ultimately yes this is our tax money but I think releasing this information to the public would only create longer term issues and greater exposure for similar/larger claims.
Report abuse
Jeff
Not if it is a small amount /a good deal for the taxpayer as is being claimed
A good deal for the taxpayer would surely be a feather in Mr Rice’s cap
Report abuse
I don’t see how this sets any relevant precedent. Settlements are always being made in court or behind the scenes but it doesn’t make the next case deservant of any settlement. Settlement is negotiated on the facts of the matter at that time.
Report abuse
That was exactly my point to sparty yesterday West. Every case is judged independently and on its own merits so releasing this information wouldn’t affect future cases – its just a last ditch attempt to hide the truth from the taxpayer.
Report abuse
“The costs of the settlement had been covered by the States insurers and its agreement had depended on both sides signing a confidentiality agreement”
Report abuse
What has that got to do with this setting a precedent for future cases Sparty you’re off topic as usual.
Report abuse
forest
Clearly the insurers believe it would effect other claims/settlements which is why they have insisted on a confidentiality clause.
What would you prefer, no insurance and the states cover all settlements themselves? That’s a limitless risk surely.
What price are you prepared to pay for transparency? The cost of the errors and who pays the cost doesn’t change a thing.
Report abuse
The Home office is answerable the POLICE COMMITTEE?. Is this why they have imported armoury to protect themselves from all their wrong doings.
Report abuse
Maybe we’re going down the Jersey road, whereby the police, law officers and politicians are all up to there necks in all sorts of corruption and misdeeds, and they all have to protect each other to keep the game alive.
Report abuse
I cannot stand those Guernsey pin badges the deputies wear.
If JLT is wearing it to show his credentials as a politician, then he has none so should cease and desist wearing it.
He doesn’t represent the will of the people, he’s a spineless self-serving and a joke of a minister.
States of Guernsey = corruptus in extremis.
Report abuse
Thoroughly agree, General Election now please! If the states can’t even go one year without stuffing everything up and wasting the people’s money then they clearly are not fit to govern and must be disbanded immediately. Regardless now I think Le Tocq’s fate has officially been sealed. He will not get in at the states without rigging the ballot box.
Report abuse
Here here. I don’t trust him and he is a scary bully. Happy to tell him face to face, just reply Mr JLT and we can meet up (no chance of that I suspect)
Report abuse
This will be a first for me as an atheist quoting scripture, but here we go!
Jonathan Le Tocq can I remind you of of passage in Proverbs that no doubt you have used in one of your sermons.
“Have I not written thirty sayings for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge, teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve?”
Proverbs 22:20-22 (New International Version)
Then go and look up ‘hypocrite’ in the dictionary.
Report abuse
Really you quoting scripture as an atheist is rather hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?
If we’re going by definitions here then let’s all adhere to them. Who are you to throw the first stone?
Report abuse
Grammargirl
Why are you not in school today?
Report abuse
I didn’t go the the Grammar School, I just happen to like grammar.
Report abuse
grammargirl…what a strange little Christian you are. Do you really believe it is hypocritical for an atheist to quote the Bible….it is more of case of knowing the kind of nonsense that drives you, and your ilk, and being able to remind you of the pitfalls within such a belief.
Report abuse
Rule no.1 of the gospel according to me; you should never trust one who thumps a bible with his fist, for he is not what he seems. He either wants your money or your heart/mind/body/soul, and should be treated with utmost caution.
Report abuse
Good advice Preacher. Personally I find reading the Bible is far more beneficial than thumping it!
Report abuse
grammargirl
Why is it hypocritical for me to quote the bible? JLT is a Christian preacher, so he supposedly lives by these words/ rules.
Except of course clearly he doesn’t, hence my comment!
” Who are you to throw the first stone? ”
He started it!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t believe in God any more than I believe we have a decent government. I’ll freely use their own rhetoric against both of them if I want. Unlike Mr Le Tocq I haven’t set myself up as a public figure and one with supposedly better morals than the rest of us ‘sinners’ at that. I haven’t met many atheist hypocrites, can’t say the same for the religious types! (I’ll let the Dali Lama off, he seems quite nice)
Report abuse
It’s rather a big generalisation to imply that all Christians think that they are better than everyone else. Having spoken to JLT I know that he does not comply with this theory.
I have met plenty of atheist hypocrites; you are all the better for having met none of them I assure you.
Report abuse
…grammargirl….having had a chinwag with JC, who seems to believe there is a smattering of hypocritical output from JLT, I’m afraid you will have to abide with me on that one…
Report abuse
To be fair, MrsP said she hadn’t met many….not any.
The reality is that hypocrisy exists in people of all faiths, and none. That said, we Christians should be the last people in the world to be self righteous. It’s central to our faith that we can’t earn our way into God’s good books by being good people – we are totally dependent on Jesus Christ. No wonder Paul (the apostle – not me!) said all the self-righteous trappings of birthright, status, religious knowledge and education were like sh*t in comparison to knowing Christ.
Report abuse
I also didn’t single out christians for hypocrisy, I just said ‘religious types.’
But hey, if the cross fits!
Report abuse
i believe if the sum was disclosed it would set a precedent for any future case.
now the court has set out who you can sue a case will come to court that has been held up because of the who to sue argument, watch this space.
Report abuse
How can this be. Settlements are agreed on the facts of each matter. No, this is to do with keeping the public in the dark to try and save face for the gross negligence of this case and to mitigate the humiliation that would ensue
Report abuse
This kind of thinking is borne out of scaremongering and propaganda.
Report abuse
Right so revealing the figure would set a rpecedent would it? What for exactly? The next time the police wrongfully break into a professional firms offices? Normal protection would be to simply not do it again!!!!!!
Not sure how this case could be relevant to any others really?
I suspect they were out manoueved by some intelligent lawyers and paid through the nose.
Report abuse
A precedent for future claims, this is mental, why would there be future valid claims? The only reason why I can see is if they decided to break the law again. The laws and penalties are there for a reason. If you do something illegal you should be prepared to pay the consequences financially and socially who ever you are.
Animal farm comes to mind “some animals are more equal than others.”
Strange that some deputy’s seem to be confused about the difference between being transparent and opaque.
Report abuse
After the revolution, the pigs “ruled” as a committee subject to a vote by the other animals until Napoleon took power through military might. (with an armoured landy)
Report abuse
If it’s made known, then it shows we the tax payer are in control. It’s not being made public to prove the establishment are in control. If it does become public knowledge then they (the establishment have lost) and it’s one more nail in the fascist establishment coffin, and victory for freedom.
Report abuse
Have you been watching Les Mis Peter?
Report abuse
I think we need to start painting big red ‘V’ signs on our houses again Peter.
Report abuse
We had a cover up over the Fishing payment, silence on the Lagan payment and now this fiasco. It seems that these days everything is covered by some clause or other justification to keep information away from the public. Is this idea of open and transparent government along with accountability really a myth for the masses and something we will never see?
Report abuse
It’s not a cover up it’s subjection.
Report abuse
So, according to Mr Le Tocq on the news the people of Guernsey wants value for money…. well too right We do and we are not getting it, from you or the other overpaid under achievers….and time is tick-tocq..ing away.
Donkeys also have memories like Elephants
Report abuse
I have seen more transparent ditch water
Report abuse
This payment was made because the law broken………it appears some people are above the law!
If a broke a law I’d be in prison and paying my own compensation!
Report abuse
Is there any difference between the police illegally raiding an office and removing items and a burglar breaking into a property and removing items?
If there isn’t then should the police officers, or the commanding officer not be charged with burglary in the criminal courts?
Report abuse
They had a court-signed warrant when they entered the offices.
Report abuse
It looks like somewhere along the line mistakes were made, and compounded by the botched 3am raid.
AFR should do the right thing and put the ball in Home’s court by releasing the amount, they would gain considerable public support and probably a fair few customers who respect honesty and integrity by them doing so.
Report abuse
The silence from AFR is deafening. No doubt their staff had a good bonus. Le Tocq will never get voted in again, no one likes dishonest politicians.
Report abuse
A song from the group Moody Blues comes to mind.
GO NOW !
Report abuse
To Dave Jones and others who are saying this is to do with the insurance policy conditions, I would say you are wrong. Doesn’t this fall short of the insurance cover?
Perhaps the word settlement is wrong and the correct terminology is compensation. This would make Home office and Chief of Police very nervous as if another mistake is made compensation payments usually are based on precedents.
Report abuse
West
I think you should check what the Home Minister said in his statement to the States on Wendsday morning and what I have said is wholly consistent with that statement and no I don’t think either of us is wrong.
Report abuse
Dave
The GEP doesn’t appear to agree with you.
Report abuse
West
That wouldn’t be the first time.
I knew I heard the statement right and it was repeated again this morning by a BBC reporter at 7 AM
Report abuse
The GEP and 99% of the voting public do not believe you.
This will not go away, just fester.
Do the right thing and bring a no confidence vote forward against the Home Department.
You know deep down this is going to have to happen to get the public back on your side.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
I agree with what you have said you heard in relation to the insurance.
When I made the comment on 28 Feb earlier in this thread which said
“The costs of the settlement had been covered by the States insurers and its agreement had depended on both sides signing a confidentiality agreement”
this comment was in quotation marks because it was a direct quote from a BBC website news report.
Jonathan Le Tocq has also made clarifications on twitter.
I agreed with nearly everything you said on the radio today. It only went wobbly when you ranted about sandal wearing liberal cabbages or something like that which did make me chuckle as I think you were describing Peter Sherbourne whose views are more in tune with mine :)
Report abuse
As with all fascist governments the Police were not acting illegally they were carrying out written orders. It is the States of Guernsey that should be prosecuted for Human Rights abuse.
Report abuse
This is all very strange about insurance conditions.
Is it not the case insurance companies love to tell people how professional they are, and ” insure with us as we actually meet our obligations / contract and pay out.”
Why would they not tell ? And keep payouts secret, it is not in their interest. Someone is not telling the truth !
Davey.
Report abuse
A picture says a thousand words……
The Ear Rub – This is, in effect, an attempt by the listener to ‘hear no evil’ in trying to block the words by putting the hand around or over the ear. This is the sophisticated adult version of the handsover-both-ears gesture used by the young child who wants to block out his parent’s reprimands…….
or in Mr Le Tocq’s case, the critique of the people who put him in office, who remember his election manifesto….
even though he appears to have forgotten it.
You and ‘accountability’ GSP, peas in a pod.
Report abuse
Regardless of insurance issues and whatever other tripe is being peddled, if it walks like a duck an’ quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck, and if we’re not being told the facts and figures, then it’s a cover up.
Question is, why? What’s the big deal? If it’s not a gargantuan amount, then people will live with that, I think.
Dave J. You’ve been on these boards blaming rampant speculation for stirring things up in matters such as this and the fisherman payout, but there wouldn’t be rampant speculation IF the States would just come clean and tell us the bottom line, ie, how much did these two b*lls ups cost us….
US, the people who voted you in, US, whose money is being used to pay for all this, bewitched, bothered and entirely uninformed as to why the States is willing to spend our money at their discretion but so arrogant that they feel a wave of the hand and an ‘it’s in your own best interest, it’s on a need to know basis’ will somehow keep us all happy like the bunch of retarded funghi we are evidentially considered to be.
The common link with both these cases is the Law Officers, it seems to me, so the cover up I would speculate (as no one has the decency to tell me the facts, I can but surmise) is to conceal the fact that their actions fell well below standard on both occasions.
Well, so be it. Tell us they F-ed it up, tell us what it’s cost us to date and then (drum roll please) tell us what you’re going to bl**dy well do about it…..
or is that it? Is it that the States can’t and won’t do anything about this or guarantee they won’t make similar expensive b*lls ups in the future? Is this silence, in fact, an admittance that, rather like with the CS who run this island, our elected ‘leaders’ have no power whatsoever to act in such matters? (note everyone in Gav’s office retained their job despite the 2.6 mill whoopsie).
This would then quite naturally make us question why we bother to vote at all, as it would wake us all up to the fact that the art of puppetry is alive and well an’ living in the States of Deliberation, and then none of you would have jobs.
I think a lot of your justifiable angst displayed on these boards, which I do actually admire you for, is generated by this fact, I feel your frustration because your hands are well and truly tied is only too obvious, and frankly Dave, if it is, as I and many suspect, the tail that wags the dog over here, I can’t say I blame you.
A sea change within our establishment is needed, Dave, and if you can do it, all power to you, but it’ll be an uphill struggle, and sadly, there’s no real want to change, only to maintain the status quo.
Report abuse
Scarlett
May I add my name to your excellent post No 28 as it certainly sums up my feelings
Report abuse
Very well put Scarlett.
In both of these cases the law officers got it wrong but it would seem that they are above the law of accountability themselves.
Deputies come and go but at the heart of our government are departments which are allowed to do as they please, make expensive mistakes and then retire very comfortably as a reward for their years of failure.
Deputies are played like puppets and the AFR case is a classic example of this with senior civil servants and law officers feeding deputies information to be repeated verbatem without ever questioning if what they are telling the public is actually the truth.
Report abuse
Scarlett
I have re-posted some of what I answered on another site it covers many of the points you make.
GM
I am saying that lawyers advise on the best information available at the time, it is up to us to act on or ignor that advice.
No different to you asking your advocats advice and him or her telling you at the end of the day it is your decision.
Also on the AFR issue the Law officers were conflicted and stayed out of it, it was the warrant that did not meet current legal protocol which is one of the reasons the whole thing was withdrawn after independent legal advice to that effect.
I might also remind you that it was Patrick Rice who advised that the warrant did not meet modern legal requirments and had that confirmed by a QC and it would not had been issued in a previous life had he been at the helm at he time.
We have always done things our way and over the decades we have not always kept pace with modern protocols.
And we fell foul of those failings on this occasion.
GM
You are assuming that the advice given on the fishing licences was “duff” to use your words, our decision on these licences was upheld by the original court but was overturned on appeal to the Privy Council.
Now it is not unusual for appeals to be won but that does not mean that as soon as that happens governments start rushing around suing their legal advisors for allegedly poor advice.
Guernsey States would not be the first government to have legislation overturned on appeal.
You talk as if St James Chambers is giving poor advice at every turn, that is not so. Let’s put this in perspective, the States of Guernsey have lost two cases in about 800 years, one on the fishing licences and one on LVCR;
I cannot recall any others and both show changing attitudes towards these Islands over the last few years.
The LVCR was taken to law on principle, that the UK government was singling out the Channel Islands for special treatment over scrapping the VAT concession. So can we please keep this in proportion.
Report abuse
Scarlett
Your post is good knock about stuff and my issue is that these were out of court settlements with confidentiality clauses attached. It is not for elected members of the States to break those clauses and if it was that easy then ask yourself why Deputy Lowe has not done so, after all she is asking for full disclosure, she sits on the Home department. I suspect it is because those clauses are legally binding.
I think it is pretty obvious that mistakes were made and as for what we are going to do about it ? Well it has already been done and both issues have now been settled.
On the fishing dispute as I said, we lost that on appeal after winning the initial case, It was perfectly legitimate for us to pursue the licensing aspect and as I say the original court agreed with us, the Privy Council did not but I suspect they were looking after UK interests above our own.
As for guarantees, how on earth can we guarantee that their won’t be any futures cases? With modern litigation who knows what might happen but we haven’t done too bad if we have only had 2 cases in several hundred years.
On your other point about Gav’s office, I might remind you the senior civil servant took full responsibility for that failure including the mistakes made by his underlings and resigned his position, after an unblemished record of over 30 years in the Civil Service up until that point.
As to why you vote? I would have thought that you voted those you trust into your parliament to act on your behalf but as soon as they are elected it would seem that trust goes straight out the window.
I agree with you on one specific point and that is I do get frustrated as you rightly suspect and when this unfolded I told those who needed to hear it in no uncertain terms just how angry I was.
I would also say the tail does not wag the dog in my department I can assure you on that point. We live in a democracy and we are accountable to the people so when deals are done behind closed doors with legal clauses embedded in them it make that impossible but nonetheless we have to respect it.
What is needed and what I and other deputies are determined will happen, is we need a proper policy on out of court settlements if there are to be others in the future. A policy where there is always the presumption that any settlement must be open and transparent.
We do have to trust our civil servants of course we do and sometimes they get it wrong such as in the Lagan fraud. But in the end you have to trust people like me to look after your best interests when things go wrong and I cannot think of a single States member who I could not trust to do the same, yes we all disagree at times on political strategy and policy but we all work on behalf of the community.
If you don’t believe that, then democracy is dead and you need to get rid of every single one of us and do the job yourself, or find others to step up to the plate.
Report abuse
…’my issue is that these were out of court settlements with confidentiality clauses attached…..’
…which is precisely what my – and most other people’s issue is, Dave – and I am yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why there were confidentiality clauses attached to both these mistakes.
They were both b*lls ups, they both originated from the Law Officers, they both cost taxpayers money, were both settled out of court, and of course, they both had confidentiality clauses, all done up in a neat little package by the people from who’s offices this all originated from.
Self protectionism in the extreme is the only explanation, and if they were any more obvious about that, they would have issued a press release to that effect, ending it, ‘ha ha, and no one can do anything about it…!!’
Mistakes are mistakes, we all make them, they can’t be anticipated and therefore entirely avoided, but as you yourself admit, our elected Deputies are as hog tied as the rest of us to do anything about avoiding any more ‘out of court’ settlements with similar inexplicable confidentiality agreements, as the Law Officers and the CS in general have complete autonomy, and can just make it up as they go along.
What exactly is the point for voting for people who are simply the acceptable faces of the unaccountable faceless, that sit behind them pulling the strings, and certainly, as is the case with Mr St Pier, appear not only powerless, but hypocritical, quite happy to go against their own election manifesto, let one of his own be the sacrificial lamb, whilst never giving us a proper explanation as to what happened and letting the actual culprit go free and retaining his own job.
There is no point in voting, that’s my point, Dave. You may well be the man that one day is able to change this and run the rest of the States as well as you do your own Department, and a small part of me hopes this is true.
Until then, I remain sceptical.
Report abuse
Scarlett
It is self protection against further costs.
What do I mean? Well take the fishermans dispute, we lost the case on appeal and we could have sat back and let the fishermen take us to court, either case by case or a class action by all of them collectively.
I suspect because of the appeal, it is safe to say we would have lost all those cases and then been responsible for all the fishermans legal fees and associated court costs as well as the final compensation settlement figure set by the court.
As it was all those extra costs were avoided and we just settled on a very modest compensation payment and it was finished. Also the fishermen had to produce certified logs to prove they had traditionally fished the areas under dispute before they received a penny.
Some did, others could not and received nothing and In that case I can assure you the confidentiality clause was requested by the fishermen.
The AFR case was settled for the very same reasons to avoid any escalating legal costs, confidentialy was agreed by BOTH parties on the day.
You also have to remember the case was dropped and the police officers involved had not been convicted of anything so there a reputational issues to be considered in the case of those individual officers.
It may seem simple to you but the briefings I had at Policy Council clearly showed that the issues were far more complex than just the amount involved.
You clearly don’t trust us to act in your best interests and there is not very much I can do about that.
Report abuse
Some very good posts by both Scarlett and DJ and whilst i agree with Scarlett i for one do trust DJ as a deputy and in his explanation.
Report abuse
Dave
You once told me you need the skin of a rhino to be a Deputy, I see what you mean.
I have missed a lot of this due to family issues but this one has really got people angry. I thank you for actually posting on this forum and trying to answer people’s questions. It is a shame most other Deputies don’t, they only seem to post when their Department is in the spotlight.
I have a couple of questions.
Patrick Rice released some costs at the weekend, I am assuming that these are payments that the States had to make as they fell below the insurers excess. If the AFR payment was made by the insurers, how much did the taxpayer pay as excess?
This cost would not be part of the confidentiality clause will it?
I can understand the insurers not wanting the payment released, there probably are other cases in the offing. The elderly woman injured last year when police broke down the wrong door would probably be one.
Why did the insurers not negotiate the settlement?
This really does smack of a cover your ass scenario. If JLT and his board had held their hands up and said that a mistake had been made and that the cost to the taxpayer had been the costs Patrick Rice released and the amount paid in excess from the onset, this would have been finished with by now and they would have been seen to be transparent and earned some respect. Remember, this was inherited by them.
The way this has been handled will stick in people’s minds come the next Election. JLT has come across as arrogant.
We also need to see some accountability, we were promised this and need to see it.
I have disagreed with Patrick Rice on numerous occasions on this forum and have not agreed with a lot of what he has done but I have to admit that he has done a great job with this issue, which he also inherited.
Report abuse
bcb
I would like to second that!
Report abuse
I sincerely hope that when the figures do finally surface we are not going to be fobbed off with just the amount of insurance excess !
Jeepers,this is like extracting teeth .. just give it that extra yank,own up clearly and honestly and you’ll find that after a few more days of moans and groans whatever the ‘big’ figure is it will all gradually die down and fade away
Report abuse
Dave, at the risk of bursting the bubble, CTV online today states the the same fishing co we forked out all that money to out of court, thus protecting ourselves from further action, apparently, is taking us to court, again, to dispute the licences this time, along with some other Jersey fisherman.
Care to comment… .?
Report abuse
Well said Scarlett there are many who think along the same lines.
Report abuse
Neil F
I dont mind engaging with the public ,that is part of our job as elected Deputies,
Patrick Rice released the costs of independent legal advice, as I understand it these costs were covered by the States insurers, on the question of excess I do not know, as I have not gone into that much detail because I trust those whose job it is to sort this on behalf of the States.
The settlement included discussion on other complex issues concerning the raid and the police officers involved, which is why the negotiations were handled by the Home department and the Chief and not the States insurers.
There was no “cover up” the Home Department conceded that mistakes had been made and that was acknowledged by everybody, the only thing that was being kept confidential was the eventual financial settlement which was agreed by both parties on the day.
Your last paragraph indicates that the Chief of Police should be congratulated for the way he handled this issue and I agree with you, which really negates your penultimate sentence which calls for someone to be accountable and in any event that would be the Minister of the Home department.
Report abuse
Sorry Dave but Patrick Rice made it clear the costs he released were paid for by taxpayers – not the insurers
The Andrew Ayres advice (on behalf of the named officers) was potentially paid by insurers and that’s why he wasn’t sure if he could release it or not (according to Saturday’s GP story).
Jonathan Le Tocq’s statement in the States re insurers was clearly misleading, as it appears he had no idea what was paid by insurers, and what was paid out of Home/police budget.
Report abuse
Scarlett
I have no idea at this stage what the substance of their claim is. Although as i understand it, winning the original case on licences previously, we then subsequently lost on appeal last time because they successfully argued at the Privy Council that we had no fisheries management agreement in place and we introduced the licences by ordinance, not through primary legislation. Nor at that time did we have the 12 mile limit in place agreed and signed off by HM government. The PC agreed with them and overturned the case at that appeal.
That of course is not the case this time, we have now got the 12 mile limit agreed because we had drawn up the fisheries management agreement which was accepted and passed by HMG, which then allowed us to manage those waters through licences put in place this time by primary legislation through our parliament.
So I suspect we are on much firmer ground than we were before. However until we see the detail of their appeal it is difficult to comment further.
Report abuse
Doing some further checking, it would seem that this pending court action is about the conditions attached to some of the licences but we will have to see if that turns into another attempt to overturn the licence system altogether.
Report abuse
Here are a few lines about privilege in the mother of all parliaments, which I presume we try to emulate ..
‘The extent of parliamentary privilege is based on law and custom. Sir William Blackstone states that these privileges are “very large and indefinite”, and cannot be defined except by the Houses of Parliament themselves.
The foremost privilege claimed by both Houses is that of freedom of speech in debate; nothing said in either House may be questioned in any court or other institution outside Parliament.’
So,those deputies who DO know the BIG figure that everyone is interested in ( the AFR compensation)can at the March Assembly safely inform all those deputies who are being kept out of the loop ( NOT IN THE LOOP! .. is that a matter of internal distrust amongst fellow deputies?)
Caution though. That snippet was taken from Wikipedia.Anyone believing it safe to speak out and thereby keep the taxpayers in the loop had better double check that those parliamentary rules apply here
Caution though.Better seek that advice from a UK QC as apparently our local highly paid advisers tend to hand out ‘take it or leave it’ style assistance
Report abuse