Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/51

5 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

27^th February, 2001

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats

de Veulle, Le Ruez, Rumfitt, Potter,

Le Brocq, Tibbo, Bullen, Le Breton,

Georgelin and Herbert

 

 

In the matter of the Constable of the Parish of St. Helier.

 

The Representation of the Attorney General referring to the Court the question of whether it is appropriate for the Constable to remain in office in the light of a failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding the investigation of complaints against the Honorary Police.

 

 

The Solicitor General.

Advocate A.J. Olsen for the Constable of St. Helier.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            This is a representation by the Attorney General referring to the Court certain conduct of Robert Lester Le Brocq, Connétable of St. Helier, to whom we shall refer in this judgment as "the Connétable".  We wish to make a few preliminary comments of a general nature.

 

2.            The Connétable of a Parish remains, at present, the head of the Honorary Police of his Parish.  Subject to any regulations made by the States, all the Honorary Police, including the Connétable, are under the general supervision of the Attorney General.

 

3.            Prior to 1977 there were no statutory provisions governing the conduct of the Honorary Police.  In a case of serious misconduct, whether criminal or not, the Attorney General would bring the matter to the attention of the Court.  In respect of less serious misconduct on the part of Centeniers, Vingteniers, or Constable's Officers, the matter would be dealt with at the discretion of the Connétable.  It was principally in order to introduce some measure of uniformity in dealing with and adjudicating upon complaints against Honorary Police Officers that the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations, 1977 were enacted.  The function of deciding whether and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Centeniers, Vingteniers and Constable's Officers passed to the Attorney General.  The duties of the Connétable were set out in Regulation 5.  The relevant parts of Regulation 5 provide:

 

"(1)   A complaint against a member of the Honorary Police shall be investigated by the Connétable of the Parish in which that member serves who shall inform the Attorney General of the complaint as soon as possible.

 

(4)     On completion of an investigation under this Regulation, the Connétable shall submit a report to the Attorney General."

 

4.            When a complaint is made against an Honorary Police Officer, three things should therefore follow:

 

(1)     The Connétable should inform the Attorney General of the complaint as soon as possible.

 

(2)     The Connétable should investigate the complaint.

 

(3)     On completion of his investigation, the Connétable should submit a report to the Attorney General.

 

5.            Those provisions are, of course, subject to Article 6 of the Police Force (Jersey) Law, 1974 which provides that if a member of the Honorary Police is investigating an occurrence which involves a prescribed offence (generally speaking any serious offence), he must immediately request the assistance of the States of Jersey Police.  If, therefore, the complaint against an Honorary Police Officer involves an allegation that he has committed a prescribed offence, the Connétable is under a duty immediately to request the assistance of the States Police.

 

6.            Some of the evidence put before us indicated that some Connétables, including the Connétable of St. Helier, believed that they had a discretion as to whether to report a complaint to the Attorney General.  We accept that there is a line to be drawn between a 'grumble' or, as the Connétable of Grouville put it, a 'whinge' on the one hand and a complaint on the other.

 

7.            We do not propose to say much more on that because we agree that where exactly the line is to be drawn in any individual case depends upon the particular circumstances of that case.  In general, however, where an expression of dissatisfaction with the conduct of an Honorary Police Officer is formalised to the extent of being put in writing, and drawn to the attention of the Connétable, a complaint has been made and the Connétable is duty bound to act accordingly.

 

8.            We wish to make it quite clear that where a formal complaint in this sense has been made, even if the Connétable thinks it is groundless or malicious, there is no discretion on the part of the Connétable to decide whether or not to comply with the statutory procedure.

 

9.            In relation to the matters drawn to our attention in the Attorney General's representation, we have no doubt that complaints were made.  The first complaint alleged, amongst other things, that Vingtenier Holland (as he then was) had committed an indecent assault upon a child, and had committed an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 in the back of a police van.  These complaints were reduced to writing and involved allegations that prescribed offences had been committed.  The allegations should, therefore, have been reported to the Attorney General and referred immediately to the States of Jersey Police for investigation.

 

10.        The second complaint alleged that Vingtenier Holland, (as he then was) who was off duty, had accepted a fare from a grossly intoxicated man, whom he had left in his house without taking any adequate precautions for his welfare.  This complaint was also reduced to writing.  It should have been reported to the Attorney General.

 

11.        The third complaint alleged that the Chef de Police of St. Helier, Centenier Gallichan, had been drunk on licensed premises, namely The Victoria Club, after a pre-Christmas lunch.  This complaint was also reduced to writing and later supported by a statement taken from a member of the ambulance crew called to the Club after the Centenier had fallen over.  This allegation was of criminal misconduct, that is a breach of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974, but not of a prescribed offence requiring the intervention of the States of Jersey Police.  It should have been reported to the Attorney General.

 

12.        In none of these cases however, did the Connétable report the complaint as soon as possible to the Attorney General.  Furthermore, in relation to the first complaint, he did not refer the allegations of sexual offences to the States of Jersey Police for investigation.  In relation to the second and third complaints he did not submit a report of his investigation to the Attorney General.

 

13.        The Connétable's answer to the representation does not expressly concede that he was in breach of duty, but that admission was eventually made by counsel on his behalf during the hearing.  The Connétable's explanation for these omissions was that he had inherited, on becoming Connétable in 1992, a system which had been devised by a former Chef de Police of St. Helier and which the Connétable believed had had the effect of modifying his statutory duty to report every complaint as soon as possible to the Attorney General.  He believed that he had a discretion to sift out complaints which he perceived to be groundless, fanciful, or malicious, and in effect to deal with them himself.  Thus, in relation to the second complaint, the Connétable directed his Chef de Police of the time, Centenier Patton, to investigate the complaint and to report to him.  Subsequently the Connétable wrote to the complainant informing him that there had been an in-depth investigation and that, in his opinion, Holland had acted entirely correctly.  In fact the investigation had not extended to obtaining a statement from another Honorary Police Officer who had apparently been called to the scene.  More importantly the Connétable had assumed a power to adjudicate upon the complaint that he did not possess.

 

14.        In relation to the third complaint, the Connétable had conducted a preliminary investigation by speaking to three Centeniers who had been present at the lunch.  He had then decided that the complaint was not made out and had taken no further action.  Surprisingly, despite treating the matter as a complaint, he did not respond to a letter from the Solicitor General setting out very clearly his obligations under the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations, 1977.

 

15.        We obviously do not know whether there was any substance at all in the complaint levied against Centenier Gallichan, but there is no doubt that it was a serious allegation against the Chef de Police.  Equally there was no doubt that the Connétable, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged offence was not a prescribed offence, should have distanced himself from the investigation by invoking the assistance of the States Police and that he should have reported the matter to the Attorney General.  Instead he assumed a power which he did not possess in effect to dismiss the complaint.

 

16.        So far as the first complaint is concerned it is true that the allegations were eventually referred by the Connétable to the Chef de Police who, in turn, reported the matter to the Attorney General.  Shortly thereafter the allegations were referred to the States Police for investigation.

 

17.        Mr. Olsen made the point that, despite being aware of the Connétable's delay in informing him of the complaint, the Attorney General of the day had not remonstrated with the Connétable, nor referred the matter to the Court at that time.

 

18.        No suggestion is made that the Connétable acted dishonestly or with any intention of obstructing the course of justice.  The long and short of it is that the Connétable failed to appreciate his duties under the Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations, 1977 and to act upon them.  Mr. Olsen candidly conceded that Regulation 5 of the Regulations was not uppermost in the Connétable's mind.  We think that the evidence establishes quite clearly that the Connétable paid no regard to his statutory duties under Regulation 5 and followed procedures which were in part inconsistent with them.

 

19.        On the other side of the coin the Connétable has given many years of valuable honorary service, not only as a Connétable of his Parish, but also as a Centenier and a Constable's Officer.  We accept that his omissions were mistaken and not deliberate.  Nonetheless we cannot agree with counsel for the Connétable that it would be appropriate to take no action.  The Connétable is the principal Law Enforcement Officer in the Parish.  It is not acceptable that he should fail to comply with his duties which are clearly set out in Regulations passed by the States.  We accept the assurance of his counsel that these statutory duties are now fully understood.  We think that the appropriate sanction is a reprimand and we reprimand the Connétable accordingly.

Authorities

 

 

Honorary Police (Jersey) Regulations, 1977: Regulation 5(1).

 

Police Force (Jersey) Law, 1974: Article 6.

 

Police Force (Prescribed Offences) (Jersey) Order, 1974.