Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC026

royal court

(Samedi Division)

20^th February 2008

IN THE MATTER OF THE SWEARING IN OF A CENTENIER, MR STEPHEN WILLIAM PALLETT.

S. C. Nicolle Solicitor General on behalf of the Attorney General.

Advocate A. J. Clarke on behalf of Mr Pallett.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

1.        The Court has before it a reference by the Attorney General on the question of whether Mr Stephen William Pallett should be sworn in as a Centenier of the Parish of St Brelade.  The Court announced its decision at the conclusion of the hearing on 8th February and now gives its reasons.

2.        The background briefly is as follows.  On 23^rd May, 2006 Mr Pallett was elected as a Constable's Officer for the Parish of St Brelade.  This Court was asked at that time to consider whether he should be sworn in, given his previous convictions. 

3.        Those included some motoring offences between 1977 and 1980 but there were two particular offences which caused the Attorney General to refer the matter to the Court.  Firstly, in December 1977, Mr Pallett pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court to an offence of fraudulently converting the sum of £80.  He was bound over for two years by way of sentence.  Secondly, in November 1978, in the context of some minor motoring offences, he pleaded guilty to giving false information to the police and was fined £10.

4.        In a judgment dated 22^nd June, 2006, the Superior Number unanimously considered that it was an exceptional case and that the oath of office could properly be administered to Mr Pallett despite his convictions.  The judgment gave as one of the reasons for regarding the case as exceptional the fact that the honorary office in question was that of Constable's Officer.

5.        A vacancy for the office of Centenier has now arisen and, at a nomination meeting on 18^th December, 2007, Mr Pallett was elected unopposed as a Centenier.  However, in view of the contents of the judgment of 22^nd June, 2006, the Attorney General has referred the matter to the Court for its decision as to whether the oath of office should be administered to Mr Pallett.

6.        The Solicitor General reminded the Court that the office of Centenier had a number of onerous responsibilities which did not apply in the case of a Constable's Officer.  Thus a Centenier has the power of charge, he conducts Parish Hall inquiries, he decides whether to grant bail following charge and he also presents cases before the Magistrate's Court.  She submitted that the Court must have regard to the public perception of the integrity of the criminal justice system.  She emphasised that no criticism was made of Mr Pallett personally but his case raised an issue of principle which should be resolved against him.

7.        In the course of the hearing we were referred to the report of the Home Affairs Committee (P67-2001Rpt) prepared in response to the proposition for a Committee of Inquiry into how Mr Roger Holland came to be a member of the Honorary Police.  The report stated that, on the advice of the Attorney General, the consultation group presided over by the President of the Home Affairs Committee (and including the Attorney General and the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police) had drawn up a list of offences which would be an absolute bar to becoming a member of the Honorary or States Police but had decided that other offences should only be a discretionary bar, with the decision in any particular case depending upon the circumstances.  The report indicated some factors which would normally need to be considered, such as the age when the offence(s) was committed, the time interval since the offence(s), the severity of sentence, any aggravating factors, any special circumstances, the present character and standing of the applicant in the community, the frequency of offending and the importance of giving evidence in a criminal trial.  Offences of dishonesty such as those committed by Mr Pallett in this case do not fall within the list of offences recommended by the report as constituting an absolute bar to becoming a police officer.

8.        We were also referred to Home Office Circular 51/2003 entitled 'National Recruitment Standards - Eligibility Criteria for Police Recruitment and Consistent Recruitment Practices'.  This was a document distributed to all chief officers of police forces in England and Wales.  It emphasised that police forces should not recruit people with cautions or convictions which may call into question the integrity of the applicant or the service and that each case should be dealt with on its individual merits.  The circular contained a list of offences which would lead to automatic rejection of an applicant.  Offences of dishonesty did not fall within that list but it was recommended that convictions for offences of dishonesty should normally lead to rejection unless there were exceptionally compelling circumstances. 

9.        We agree entirely with the Solicitor General that public confidence in the integrity of the police is of the highest importance.  Applicants whose character and record of convictions would call that integrity into question cannot be accepted.  It follows that, save in exceptional circumstances, a conviction for an offence of dishonesty will be a bar to becoming a member of the Honorary Police.  In this respect, we would emphasise that the fact that, in a number of parishes, it is hard to find sufficient persons willing to give their time to serve in the Honorary Police is not a relevant factor.  The fact that it is difficult to attract recruits does not justify lowering the standard required.

10.      The Court has considered Mr Pallett's application very carefully and has concluded by a majority that there are exceptional circumstances which lead us to conclude that the public interest in this particular case would best be served by swearing in Mr Pallett as a Centenier.  The reasons which have led the majority so to conclude are as follows:-

(i)        The offences were very minor.  The circumstances surrounding the offence of fraudulent conversion have been described to us and arose in connection with the running of the school canteen for the summer term.  The fact that a binding over order was imposed confirms that the Magistrate regarded it as a minor matter.  It was an incident which in more recent times might well have been dealt with at Parish Hall inquiry.  No one can recall the details of the offence of giving false information but again, given the fact that a fine of only £10 was imposed, it cannot have been regarded at the time as a serious matter.

(ii)       The offences were committed when he was a teenager.  He was 18 at the time of the conviction for fraudulent conversion and 19 when convicted of giving false information to the police.

(iii)      Nearly 30 years have passed since the offences were committed and Mr Pallett has, in that interval of time, led an industrious and unblemished life.  We have heard evidence of the voluntary activities which he has undertaken to the benefit of the community.

(iv)      He has been a Constable's Officer since 2006 and has carried out his functions in that role in an exemplary manner.  The Connétable of the Parish addressed us.  He said that he and the remaining Centeniers of the Parish strongly supported Mr Pallett and believed that he would make an excellent Centenier. 

(v)       Mr Pallett has at all relevant stages disclosed his previous convictions to the electorate.  He has in recent times stood for election as Connétable and Deputy and on each occasion his convictions have been disclosed to the nomination meeting.  The Connétable confirmed that at the nomination meeting on 18^th December, 2007, Mr Pallett again disclosed his convictions. 

11.      For these reasons, taking the matter in the round, the Court determined that, exceptionally, the oath of office of Centenier should be administered to Mr Pallett notwithstanding his two previous convictions for dishonesty.

No Authorities