Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC102

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

20^th May 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq and Clapham.

The Attorney General

-v-

Shona Pitman

Geoffrey Peter Southern

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Shona Pitman

2 counts of:

Interfering with application for registration of postal and pre-poll voters, contrary to Article 39A(1)(a) of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.  (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  35.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 2^nd and 10th November, 2008, Deputy Pitman attended the home of two electors in the St Helier No 2 District and assisted them to complete and submit application forms for registration of postal and pre-poll voting and thereby breached the terms of Article 39A of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.

Details of Mitigation:

Both defendants had pleaded guilty and had been co-operative with police investigation.  They were of good character and had no previous convictions.

Mitigation was advanced by counsel on a variety of fronts:

Both defendants were members of the States Assembly and participated in a debate in June 2008 at which the provision of the Public Elections Law whose terms they had breached was debated and adopted.  Each defendant spoke against the amendment and indicated to disobey it once enacted.  Counsel attacked the quality of the debate and made numerous references to contributions from members which, it was submitted, indicated a basic mistake and misunderstanding on the part of the many members during the debate.

The defendants argued that the amendment withdrew the right of candidates or their representatives to assist voters in filling out forms by which they applied for postal votes.  It was argued by way of mitigation that there was no corresponding public service to compensate for the withdrawal of that right and accordingly each defendant felt justified in their actions in continuing to break the law deliberately.

Counsel submitted that Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention made it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.  The defendants believed that the amendment to the law which prohibited candidates or their representatives from assisting in the filling out of application forms for postal votes resulted in disabled people being discriminated against because it made it more difficult for disabled people to exercise their right to vote. 

There had been no complaint from any victims of these crimes.  On the contrary it was said that some of the victims were grateful for the assistance offered them by the defendants. 

There had been many cases throughout history of principled parliamentarians courageously disobeying laws which they believed to be unjust.  This was, it was submitted, one such case. 

On being questioned by the Court the defendants confirmed through Counsel that they did not intend to breach the law again as previously threatened. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£1,000 fine.
Count 2:	£1,000 fine.

Total:  £2,000 fine.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court observed that the rule of Law was the backbone of s democratic society and that a departure from it would cause chaos.  The defendants were States Members who had sworn an oath to abide by and uphold the laws of the Island.  Contrary to their oaths they had deliberately flouted the Law.  Conduct by States Members which undermined the rule of Law would not be tolerated.  The Court regarded the offences as very serious.  The Court felt that the mitigation offered had failed to address the fundamental point, namely the importance of the rule of Law.  The defendants had shown no remorse.  Accordingly the fines moved for by the Crown were justified.

Conclusions granted.

Total:  £2,000 fine or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default (2 weeks' imprisonment in default on each count).

2 months time given in which to pay.

Geoffrey Peter Southern

19 counts of:	Interfering with application for registration of postal and pre-poll voters, contrary to Article 39A(1)(a) of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.  (Counts 1-18 and 20).
1 count of:	Interfering with application for registration of postal and pre-poll voters, contrary to Article 39A(1)(b) of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.  (Count 19).

Age:  59.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between 31^st October and 18^th November, 2008, Deputy Southern attended the homes of at least 20 electors in the St Helier No 2 District and assisted them to complete and/or submit application forms for registration of postal and pre-poll voting and thereby breached the terms of Article 39A of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.

Details of Mitigation:

As Pitman above.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£500 fine.
Count 2:	£500 fine.
Count 3:	£500 fine.
Count 4:	£500 fine.
Count 5:	£500 fine.
Count 6:	£500 fine.
Count 7:	£500 fine.
Count 8:	£500 fine.
Count 9:	£500 fine.
Count 10:	£500 fine.
Count 11:	£500 fine.
Count 12:	£500 fine.
Count 13:	£500 fine.
Count 14:	£500 fine.
Count 15:	£500 fine.
Count 16:	£500 fine.
Count 17:	£500 fine.
Count 18:	£500 fine.
Count 19:	£500 fine.
Count 20:	£500 fine.

Total:  £10,000 fine.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

As Pitman above.

Conclusions granted.

Total:  £10,000 fine or 20 weeks' imprisonment in default (or 10 week's imprisonment in default on each count).

6 months time given in which to pay.

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. J. Scholefield for both Defendants.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        It gives the members of this Court no pleasure whatsoever in passing sentence on two members of our States Assembly, an Assembly that makes the laws that we are duty bound to uphold.  We have listened very carefully to Advocate Scholefield's submissions in mitigation and wish to respond to them in a written Judgment that we will issue in due course but in the interests of the defendants we will state our conclusions only today.  

2.        However we will say this.  The rule of law is fundamental to a democratic society.  Our laws are made by our democratically elected Assembly of which they are members.  They spoke at and participated in the debate and are not only bound by the outcome, but under a positive duty made under their oath to uphold it.  Their remedy was to seek to change the law and not to flout it.  Without respect for the law the whole fabric of our society will fall apart.

3.        We have heard the submissions in mitigation and considered them very carefully but at the end of the day this Court simply cannot tolerate conduct by elected States Members which undermines the rule of law. 

4.        The maximum fine designated by the States is £2,000, a penalty of which the two defendants would have been more than aware.  The Crown have already reduced the fines sought very substantially and we are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

5.        Deputy Pitman, on each of counts 1 and 2 you are fined £1,000 consecutive or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default, that makes a total fine of £2,000 or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default.  You have 2 months in which to pay.

6.        Deputy Southern, on each of the counts against you, you are fined £500 consecutive or 1 week's imprisonment in default, which makes a total fine of £10,000 or 20 weeks' imprisonment in default.  You have 6 months in which to pay.

Authorities

Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended.

States Assembly Hansard Report dated 10 June 2008.