Free and fair elections in Jersey?

Historical Archive

This article is preserved as part of the historical record of this blog. It reflects the author's views at the time of publication. The content has not been substantively altered, although the HTML, accessibility and formatting have been updated to meet modern web standards.

---

On Friday 11 November 2011, I presented my Representation to the Royal Court of Jersey. There will be no fanfare; it is not going to be a landmark day, for it is the start of a long, laborious process which may take months, if not years, to complete.

The Representation contends, initially, that the Royal Court cannot convene in a manner compliant with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 to hear matters relating to the 2011 Jersey Senatorial elections.

Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to free and fair elections. The Royal Court was asked to consider whether Jersey's elections complied with that standard.

I argued that the Court could not provide either the appearance of independence or objective and subjective impartiality, as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• All twelve Jurats had acted as adjointe (returning officers) during the election, yet two would be required to sit in judgment on matters arising from their own actions.
• The Judicial Greffier and the Attorney General had also performed the role of adjointe in this or previous elections within the relevant limitation period.
• A number of office holders, including any judge appointed to hear the matter, ultimately owed their appointments directly or indirectly to one of the election candidates, the former Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache.

Under the Royal Court Rules 2004 and Part 9A of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, the Court must consist of a judge, two Jurats, the Judicial Greffier and the Attorney General, or those acting in their place.

In those circumstances, and because of the absence of a clear separation of powers, I sought leave to apply directly to the European Court of Human Rights together with a declaration of incompatibility under Article 13 on the basis that no effective domestic remedy existed.

At that stage I had not yet pleaded the alleged breaches of Article 3 of Protocol 1 concerning free and fair elections, although I had already identified twenty-two alleged breaches.

My application seeking to prevent the Jersey Evening Post, which would be a party to the proceedings, from reporting the case while it remained ongoing was refused at that stage.

The next step would be a pre-trial directions hearing to determine the procedural framework, including the constitution of the Court.

I had also held limited discussions with the Attorney General and the Judicial Greffier, who clarified procedural matters but indicated no intention at that stage to seek to strike out the Representation as trivial, frivolous or vexatious.

---

Historical Archive Update

This page was updated on 27 July 2026. The content has been preserved as originally published. This update was undertaken solely to modernise the HTML markup, improve accessibility, correct obvious spelling mistakes and grammatical slips, update obsolete links where appropriate, and bring the page into line with current web standards.