[2011]JRC229
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan. |
Between |
Paul Le Claire |
Representor |
And |
The Attorney General |
Respondent |
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PAUL LE CLAIRE
The Representor represented himself.
The Attorney General appeared in person.
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 8th November, 2011, the Court ordered a re-count of the votes cast in the election for deputies in the St Helier No. 1 District held on 19th October, 2011.
2. The application for a re-count was brought on oath by the Representor ("Deputy Le Claire") before the Court on Friday 4th November, 2011. The candidates elect were due to take their oaths before the Court on Monday 14th November, 2011, and accordingly the Court convened the Attorney General to a hearing on 8th November, 2011, and ordered that the other candidates be notified so that they could be heard; the intention being that if a re-count was to be ordered it should take place before the candidates took their oaths on 14th November, 2011.
3. There were three seats for deputies in the St Helier No. 1 District and 8 candidates (three of whom including the Representor were sitting deputies). The results were as follows:-
James Patrick Gorton Baker 767 votes
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman 763 votes
Deputy Judith Ann Martin 717 votes
Deputy Le Claire 700 votes
Nicolas Basil Le Cornu 571 votes
Keith Terence Shaw 482 votes
Mary O'Keeffe-Burgher 331 votes
Gennarino Risoli 178 votes
Deputy Le Claire therefore failed to be elected by 17 votes. There were 18 spoiled ballot papers.
4. At the hearing, Deputy Le Claire supplemented his application by further evidence given on oath. The substance of his complaint can be summarised as follows:--
(i) On 19th October, 2011, he was ill, suffering from bronchitis. He had seen his doctor that morning, who confirmed in writing to us that he was indeed most unwell and his ability to work was impaired.
(ii) He spent much of the rest of the day at the polling station at the Town Hall and when the poll closed at or around 8.10pm he attempted to go upstairs with Deputy Martin to be present at the count, where they were met by two honorary police officers who said they were under instructions from the Autorisé to clear the foyer and front doors. Deputy Le Claire said he challenged the officers, informing them that he had given notice that he or a representative wished to be present at the count, but this was to no avail. He and Deputy Martin and their respective supporters therefore left the Town Hall for refreshments at a local establishment. In time he noticed that Deputy Martin had left and he therefore returned to the Town Hall, the doors of which were open. He went upstairs to the hall where barriers had been erected across the hall close to the doors, separating those involved in the count. There he found some of the candidates with their supporters and members of the media. One candidate, Mr Le Cornu, was inside the barriers watching the count. Deputy Le Claire said he felt he had lost the argument over his ability to watch the count and in any event, he said there was no one at the barriers to ask; the Returning Officer was, he said, going backwards and forwards between the Adjoints and an Adjoint manning a computer on the podium, which is at the far end of the hall. There was, he says, no interaction between the Autorisé and the candidates behind the barrier.
(iii) The Autorisé announced the results from the podium at the far end of the hall and therefore some considerable distance from the candidates. There was no communication between the Autorisé and the candidates before the announcement and no communication was possible on their part being impeded by the barriers and the considerable distance between them.
(iv) When the announcement was made, Deputy Martin collapsed, causing her supporters and Deputy Le Claire concern (it transpires that her back had given way) and he had the media "in his face" asking for his reaction and taking photographs. He felt unwell and shocked. He congratulated the other candidates and moved out of the hall where the count for the senatorial elections was now proceeding.
5. Of the other candidates, all but Mr Baker and Mr Risoli attended the hearing before us on the 8th November, 2011. Deputy Pitman said he would support a case where there was a genuine reason for a re-count, but in his personal view a loss by 17 votes did not meet that criterion. If mistakes had been made by the Adjoints in the count that would have been corrected by the Autorisé and it would be unfair on Deputy Martin for a re-count to take place. He asked for a quick decision. Deputy Martin did not oppose the application and did so graciously, bearing in mind she had the closest interest in any re-count.
6. Mr Le Cornu supported the application. He said that initially, the Autorisé had not allowed him access to the count, but after they had both consulted the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law"), he was given access. He presented an affidavit in which he made a number of observations on the counting process. Before summarising those it is helpful to set out the counting procedure where there are ballots for two or more vacancies as described in the guidance issued by the Deputy Judicial Greffier dated 20th July, 2011, ("The Jersey Manual"):-
"10.33 Count ballot papers into batches of 25.
10.34 Assistant to call the votes recorded on the ballot paper, the other making a tick in the appropriate box of the collating sheet. Considerable care is needed here because the Assistants must be alert as to whether an elector has voted for more than the permissible number and of course there will be "plumpers" where electors have not used all their possible votes.
10.35 The Assistants reverse their roles and double check the votes of that batch of 25; they then initial the collating sheet and pass it with the batch of ballot papers to an Assistant designated to calculate the result.
10.36 The designated Assistant totals all the votes recorded on the master sheets."
7. Mr Le Cornu said he observed in detail the activities of 3 pairs of Adjoints but concentrated initially on an elderly couple who he noticed were having difficulties in counting. The woman held up a ballot and asked if four votes were acceptable, as she had been told this was the case for the senatorial election. It was pointed out to her that the maximum number of votes that could be cast in the District No 1 elections was three. The ballot with four votes was withdrawn to the Autorisé for adjudication as spoilt. He was concerned that this particular couple had not been correctly briefed as to what constituted a valid ballot. He felt that this couple were having considerable difficulty reading the ballots in the relatively low light of the main hall, the ballots having been completed in pencil and in many cases very faintly. He was also concerned that with the din of the room with others calling out names this particular couple could not hear the candidates' names being called by their partner. He believed one of them may have been hard of hearing and that they made mistakes marking the collating sheet, putting votes to the candidates that then had to be rubbed out and begun again. In one instance, so many mistakes had been made that they ruined a collating sheet by making it so illegible with corrections that it had to be scrapped. It was replaced with a fresh sheet. He also observed this couple abandon one column in a particular collating sheet because there had been so many corrections and rubbings out that it became illegible. They sought to correct this by creating an additional total column on the right hand side of the collating sheet. When it came to totalling the number of votes cast on the collating sheet, he could tell that they were having difficulty in reaching an accurate tally. Having said all of this he did conclude that in general the errors he observed were quickly and accurately corrected.
8. Mr Shaw supported the application on the basis of Mr Le Cornu's affidavit. He thought there was an unresolved doubt and that it was an important matter of public perception that there should be a re-count.
9. Mrs O'Keeffe-Burgher also supported the application. She informed us that she had been involved in elections in the United Kingdom where it was the practice for the Returning Officer to explain the results to the candidates informally before an announcement was made, to see if they had any concerns, and whether they wished there to be a re-count. It was only then that the declaration would proceed. In her view, this was the crux of the problem in this case as no re-count was offered by the Autorisé.
10. Deputy Le Claire handed to us a letter from Mr Risoli dated 5th November, 2011, supporting the application.
Approaches to and requirements of the Law
11. The relevant articles of the Law are Articles 57, 58 and 59 and it is helpful to set them out here:-
"57 Applications to Royal Court
(1) Every case of a disputed public election shall be dealt with by the Royal Court.
(2) Any person, whether or not a candidate in an election, may dispute a public election by making application to the Royal Court, being an application on oath setting out the grounds for the dispute and made before the end of the period of 12 months following the day that has been fixed for delivering the returns to the Royal Court.
58 Procedure
(1) In a case where a public election is disputed, the Royal Court shall -
(a) order that the parties shall appear before the Judicial Greffier to state their allegations and pleas; and
(b) by order, fix the day when the parties are to appear in the Royal Court with witnesses, being a day within 6 weeks after the date of the order where the election has been for Senator, and within one month after the date of the order in the case of any other election.
(2) If a plaintiff fails to proceed before the Judicial Greffier, so as to complete his or her case within the time allowed by the Royal Court, his or her objection shall be set aside, and the plaintiff shall be ordered to pay the recoverable and non-recoverable costs of the case.
59 Examination of papers
(1) If the count is disputed, or the decision of the Autorisé as to a disputed ballot paper is disputed, the Royal Court may order that the packages containing the relevant used ballot papers (both valid and invalid) be opened.
(2) If the validity of the ballot papers is disputed, the Royal court may order that the parties may examine the relevant used ballot papers (both valid and invalid) at the Judicial Greffe.
(3) If the Royal Court upholds an objection to a vote, the packages containing the relevant ballot papers and their counterfoils may be opened and, if so, the relevant ballot paper and its counterfoil shall be taken out and kept apart.
(4) In all cases referred to in this Article, the Royal Court shall cause the packages, if opened, to be re-sealed as soon as the examination which made their opening necessary has been completed."
12. The Attorney General, whose submissions were made as Partie Publique to assist the Court, submitted that there were two approaches to these provisions. The first is to treat all three articles as to be read together. Accordingly, the application would be considered (as it states) as an application under Article 57 disputing the election. Alternatively, Articles 57 and 58 would be considered to apply to disputed elections whereas Article 59(1) applies to a disputed count. If that were so then the application would be best considered as made on the basis that the count was disputed. This is relevant only when considering what procedure might apply and whether the Court need follow the requirements of Article 58.
13. The better view, in the opinion of the Attorney General, was that the three articles should be read together and a disputed count should be seen as a form of disputed election. If Article 59(1) should however be read as separate from the preceding Articles then he submitted that it was clear from its terms that the Court had a discretion whether or not to order the packages to be re-opened (presumably, although the Law is silent, for the purposes of a re-count).
14. What is required, argued the Attorney General, is that the Court should first satisfy itself that there was a sufficient basis for it to exercise its jurisdiction. In other words, it must be satisfied that there is a real dispute over the outcome of the election under Article 57 or, alternatively, if Article 59 is viewed as separate, that there is a proper basis to order the packages to be opened for a re-count. There must be a "good reason" to do so.
15. In the view of the Attorney General, there was a public interest in ensuring the result in an election is correct and reflects the will of the electorate but at the same time it is equally clear that no candidate has a right to demand a re-count and that no re-count should be ordered unless there is a sufficient basis for doing so. If not, then any election would be susceptible to a re-count on the whim of a candidate or "any person" for a period of 12 months.
16. We agree with the Attorney General that Articles 57, 58 and 59 should be read in conjunction with each other. As a matter of construction Article 59 does not stand alone but is concerned with public election disputes brought under Article 57 which require for their determination that the sealed packages containing the ballot papers (both valid and invalid) and the counterfoils be opened; setting out the various cases where this can be done in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) (and then re-sealed under paragraph (4)), but there must first be a disputed public election. There are a wide number of circumstances in which an election may be disputed ranging for example from allegations of making inducements or threats, to allegations of interference with postal or pre-poll voting, misconduct inside the polling station or interference in the poll, to allegations of voting without right and to allegations concerning the validity of the ballot papers and of the count itself. If the dispute relates to the count or to the ballot papers then Article 59 empowers the Court to have the packages opened. We further agree that before the Royal Court can exercise its powers under Article 59, it must first be satisfied that there is a real dispute under Article 57.
Representor's case
17. Deputy Le Claire made it clear that he was disputing the election and was seeking a re-count, because he believed that the count may have been inaccurate. He pointed to the small number of votes between him and Deputy Martin (17), which was less than the number of spoiled votes, the fact that he had been excluded from the count (or part of it), that the Autorisé had not offered a re-count and that, in any event, the way in which the announcement was handled made it difficult for him to ask for one.
18. The Attorney General pointed out that there is no right under the Law for a candidate to a re-count on request. It is a matter for the discretion of the Autorisé. Furthermore there is no obligation under the Law on the Autorisé to suggest or offer a re-count. He made no firm submissions on the facts but did make the following observations:-
(i) Deputy Le Claire had not pointed to any irregularities (apart from his alleged exclusion from the count) which suggested that the election was invalid or that there was a doubt as to the outcome.
(ii) In terms of the 18 spoilt votes, for them to affect the result, the following hypotheses would need to be true:-
(a) that the Autorisé wrongly declared all eighteen papers spoilt when they were in fact valid - meaning that in fact there were no spoilt papers whatsoever in St Helier District No. 1;
(b) that all eighteen contained a vote for Deputy Le Claire; and
(c) that none of the eighteen contained a vote for Deputy Martin.
To tie with Deputy Martin and therefore secure a fresh election then the same hypotheses would need to be true for seventeen out of the eighteen spoilt papers.
(iii) At no stage did Deputy Le Claire ask for a re-count.
(iv) The Autorisé did not see a basis to order a re-count of his own motion or he would have done so.
(v) Even if Deputy Le Claire was not present at the count another candidate, Mr Le Cornu, was and the Court has the benefit of his affidavit. That affidavit was in the Attorney General's view evidence of the process working in that it shows that questions raised were properly answered and mistakes made corrected. Mr Le Cornu himself had raised no complaint at the time and had not requested a re-count himself.
Procedure
19. The Court faced a procedural predicament. We comment on Article 58 in a moment but ordinarily we would have adjourned the hearing so that we could hear evidence and make findings as to the facts. We were conscious in particular that we had not received a report from or heard the evidence of the Autorisé and the Honorary Police, who had not therefore had an opportunity to comment on the allegations made by Deputy Le Claire. Nor was the Attorney General in a position to cross examine Deputy Le Claire on his affidavit. We would have proceeded in that manner if Deputy Le Claire was seeking to have the election declared void and a new election ordered. As it was he was not seeking to have the election declared void but sought a re-count which may affect the result of what he accepted was otherwise a valid election. If there was to be a re-count it was very much in the public interest and that of the candidates that it be undertaken quickly and if possible before the successful candidates took their oaths the following Monday.
20. We determined that the public interest in dealing with the matter quickly prevailed and that we should proceed without making any findings of fact but asking ourselves whether the affidavit of Deputy Le Claire had raised a prima face case sufficient to persuade us that there was a real dispute which justified the ordering of a re-count. This Judgment is not therefore to be interpreted in any way as a criticism of the Autorisé or of the Honorary Police as to their conduct in relation to the count.
Presence at the Count
21. Article 49(3) of the Law is clear as to the right of any candidate to be present at the count. It is in the following terms:-
"49(3) The count shall be carried out in the presence of -
(a) any candidates for whom a vote could have been cast in that electoral district and who wish to be present at the count; and
(b) any of their representatives duly appointed under Article 28 that wish to be present at the count."
There is no requirement for candidates to give prior notice that they wish to exercise their right to be present at the count. However notice has to be given under Article 28 of the Law for representatives to be present.
22. The importance of the presence of the candidates at the count is emphasised in paragraphs 10.15 and 16 of the Jersey Manual:-
"10.15 The first objective before anything else is done is to ensure that any candidate or nominated representative wishing to witness the count is present.
10.16 Once they have chosen to witness the "count" candidates or their nominated representatives should be required to remain in the "count" until it is finished."
23. Transparency of and confidence in the process is important and for a candidate to be denied his or her right to be present at the count (if that occurred) would be a serious matter in our view.
Re-Count
24. We accept that the decision whether or not to have a re-count rests entirely on the Autorisé and there is no express statutory requirement for him to inform the candidates of the provisional results before the results are announced and the candidates have no express statutory right to request a re-count.
25. The position in England is different in that there, the Returning Officer is obliged to consult with the candidates in order to advise them of the outcome of the count before the declaration is made and the candidates have the right to request a re-count which the Returning Officer may refuse if the believes the request to be unreasonable.
26. The Attorney General referred us to the UK Electoral Commission's 2010 General Election Returning Officers Manual ("The English Manual") from which it is clear that great emphasis is placed upon the Returning Officer communicating the process to the candidates. Paragraph 3.3 is in the following terms:-
"Communicating the Process
3.3 Before the count begins, the (Acting) Returning Officer should address the candidates, agents and all others in attendance, to explain what will be happening at the court. This will allow those present to observe meaningfully all of the processes and to build confidence in the administration of the count. Providing information on the counting process can also help to lower the number of queries raised by candidates and agents, thus reducing the pressure on those working at the count."
27. Under paragraph 3.5 of the English Manual, the Returning Officer is encouraged to make announcements as the process continues, in particular as to when the adjudication of doubtful ballot papers is to be carried out. Before proceeding with the declaration the Returning Officer is required to communicate the provisional results to the candidates giving them sufficient time to digest the same and it is at that point that any candidate can request a re-count. Even if the Returning Officer considers that a re-count is unreasonable, paragraph 5.3 of the English Manual provides that he can consider offering the candidates the opportunity to inspect the bundles of ballot papers as a means of reassuring them that the result is accurate.
28. In his written submission the Attorney General commented that it was perhaps a little unfortunate that allegedly the candidates in this case were not told of the provisional result of the count in advance, which would have given them the opportunity to consider asking for a re-count and to make representations accordingly.
29. Article 52 of the Law is in the following terms:-
"52 Return
(1) Once the count is complete in an electoral district, the persons who were entitled to vote in that electoral district who wish to attend shall be admitted into the polling station where the count took place in that district.
(2) Except in the class of an election of one or more senators, the Autorisé shall -
(a) Announce the result of the election in the electoral district where the Autorisé was in charge and the number of valid votes obtained by each candidate there; and
(b) Prepare a return about the election for the Royal Court.
(3)
(4) "
30. It is in the preparation of the return that the packages containing the ballots and counterfoils are sealed by the Autorisé and once sealed, can only be opened by order of the Court (Article 55 of the Law). Accordingly, no re-count would be possible after the Autorisé has sealed the packages. Article 52(1) envisages that after the count is complete and before the announcement is made, the voters are allowed back into the polling station. This indicates to us that it was the intention of the legislature that if there is to be a re-count, it should take place before the announcement so that it is completed before the voters are re-admitted. If so then if candidates are to be given the opportunity of asking for a re-count they must be informed of the provisional results before the announcement. We accept that in this case it was not possible to re-admit voters because the count for the senatorial election immediately followed but we conclude that the whole of the counting process, including any re-counts, must be completed before the voters are re-admitted (where that is possible) and the announcement of the results is made.
31. Giving candidates (or their representatives) the right to be present during the count shows the importance the legislature placed upon their inclusion in the process and in that spirit it seems to us important that they should be informed of the provisional results before the announcement is made so that they can have an opportunity of raising any concerns they may have over the process with the Autorisé and in particular to have the opportunity of asking for a re-count; accepting that the decision as to whether there should be a re-count is for the Autorisé alone. Such a consultation will also assist the Autorisé in deciding whether he is satisfied with the process before making the announcement.
32. All of this pre-supposes the co-operation of the candidates or their representatives. If they or their representatives do not make themselves available to the Autorisé to be consulted over the provisional results, they can hardly be seen to complain if the result, when announced, is close. Should candidates or their representatives, who are consulted over the provisional results, fail or decline to ask for a re-count where the result is close then it is most unlikely that the Court would subsequently entertain an application for a re-count on that ground.
33. Deputy Le Claire alleges that there was no consultation with the candidates over the provisional results and that in the circumstances of this case he had no real opportunity of asking for a re-count. If there was no consultation, it is not in our view surprising given that there is no express requirement in the Law for consultation and there is nothing in the Jersey Manual to that effect; thus there can be no criticism of the Autorisé for not doing so. It is this Court that has for the first time, we believe, expressed the view that such consultation should take place.
34. We were concerned with elections for deputy but note in passing that re-counts in elections for senator on the ground of the closeness of the vote will in practice only be ordered by the Court. If the voting in a particular district is close the Autorisé may in his discretion order a re-count, although there would seem little point in him doing so on that ground alone because it is only when the Judicial Greffier adds the results of the counts of all the electoral districts pursuant to Article 53(3) of the Law that any closeness in the final result will become apparent. The Judicial Greffier would appear to have no power to order a re-count and so any disaffected senatorial candidate would have to dispute the election under Article 57 seeking a re-count pursuant to Article 59(1) and this on the basis of the closeness of the result. We can see no reason why an election should not be disputed on this basis if done so promptly but it would be in the discretion of the Court whether to order a re-count of the votes cast in what would be all the electoral districts.
Decision
35. The Attorney General drew our attention to two cases, namely R De Gruchy and R Du Feu (1954) Table Des Décisions de la Cour Royale de Jersey 1951-58 and In re Pearce [1992] JLR 47, which although decided on quite different facts, emphasised the principle now enshrined in Article 61(4) of the Law which is in the following terms:-
"...if the Royal Court considers that any failure to conduct an election in accordance with this Law is not a matter of substance and has not affected the result of the election, the Court shall not declare the election void and not order a fresh election."
36. However as previously noted the Court was not being asked in this case to set the election aside and order a fresh election, but to order a re-count, which might lead to a change in the results of what Deputy Le Claire accepted was otherwise a valid election. We concluded that Deputy Le Claire had raised issues as to the process sufficient to persuade us that there was a real dispute justifying the ordering of a re-count. In doing so we took into account the following in particular:-
(i) His alleged exclusion from the count or part of it and the alleged lack of communication over the provisional results giving him no real opportunity of asking for a re-count.
(ii) The closeness of the votes between him and Deputy Martin;
(iii) The fact that the application had been brought without delay and in time for a re-count to be undertaken before the successful candidates took their oaths.
37. In relation to the closeness of the votes, we wish to make it clear that this factor on its own would not have been sufficient in our view to justify our ordering a re-count. The Autorisé clearly did not consider the vote to be sufficiently close to justify a re-count and the members of this Court, who themselves have considerable experience of acting as Autorisé, would not have been inclined to question his decision. There is no definition of what is or is not close and it is a matter of judgement on the particular facts. It will depend we suggest on how close the votes are in relation to the total number of votes cast and the assessment of the Autorisé as to the process and the accuracy of the results.
38. The Attorney General submitted that Article 58 was obligatory but that in addition to making an order under Article 58 (convening the parties before the Judicial Greffier) the Court could simultaneously order a re-count under Article 59(1).
39. We saw no point in making an order under Article 58 ordering the parties to appear before the Judicial Greffier to state their allegations and pleas and thereafter to fix a date for the hearing with witnesses, when we had at the same time ordered a re-count which would dispose of the matter, in this case in a matter of hours after our decision in that the re-count was undertaken that afternoon. It is a long standing principle of statutory construction that the Court will seek to avoid a construction which produces an absurd result and the Courts have given a very wide meaning to the concept of "absurdity", using it to include virtually any result which is unworkable or impractical, inconvenient, anomalous or illogical, futile or pointless, artificial, or productive of a disproportionate counter-mischief. (See AG-v-De Sousa Freitas [2009] JRC 176).
40. In any event in our view the Court has complied with the substance and true intention of Article 58. The purpose of the Article is to ensure that any election dispute is determined by the Court within a tight timeframe so that under Article 58(1)(a) the allegations and pleas are first marshalled before the Judicial Greffier and under Article 58(1)(b) a date is then fixed before the Court within one month. When the matter first came before the Court on 4th November, 2011, it ordered the parties to appear before it (as opposed to the Judicial Greffier) on the 8th November, 2011, where the allegations and pleas were stated. The Judicial Greffier is the clerk to the Court and in specifying the Judicial Greffier the legislature cannot have intended to prevent the Court itself fulfilling this function and this on the basis that the lesser must be deemed to include the greater. On the 8th November, having heard the allegations and pleas, the Court disposed of the matter there and then rather than fix a further date, and again it cannot have been the intention of the legislature to prevent an even earlier disposal of the dispute than the timetable of one month set down.
41. Accordingly the Court exercised its powers under Article 59(1) of the Law to order that the packages containing the relevant used ballot papers (both valid and invalid) be opened under the supervision of the Judicial Greffier or Deputy Judicial Greffier at such time and at such place as the Judicial Greffier or Deputy Judicial Greffier shall determine in the presence of Deputy Le Claire and the other candidates who wished to be present in order to conduct a re-count and to submit a written report to the Court through the Attorney General on Wednesday 9th November at 4:00pm. For that purpose, we authorised the Judicial Greffier or the Deputy Judicial Greffier to appoint Adjoints to help him in the process and pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Law, we ordered that the packages be re-sealed as soon as the process had been completed. The Judicial Greffier or Deputy Judicial Greffier were to make reasonable efforts to contact those candidates not present in Court by telephone to inform them of the time and location of the re-count (it being anticipated to take place almost immediately after the hearing) but for the avoidance of doubt, we made it clear that the process was to take place irrespective of whether the candidates were able to be present, the public interest and fairness to the candidates generally requiring that the process be conducted without delay.
42. The re-count took place on the afternoon of 8th November, 2011, supervised by the Deputy Judicial Greffier and in the presence of Deputy Le Claire and all of those candidates who had appeared before the Court. The other two candidates were out of the Island. The very comprehensive report filed by the Deputy Judicial Greffier on the 9th November, 2011, shows that prior to the re-count commencing the process was carefully explained to them. The results of the re-count were:-
James Patrick Gorton Baker 767 votes
Deputy Trevor Mark Pitman 763 votes
Deputy Judith Ann Martin 717 votes
Deputy Le Claire 700 votes
Nicolas Basil Le Cornu 571 votes
Keith Terence Shaw 482 votes
Mary O'Keeffe-Burgher 331 votes
Gennarino Risoli 178 votes
There were the same 18 spoiled ballot papers.
43. As can be seen these figures correspond exactly to the figures given following the original count, an outcome that must instil confidence in the process and which shows that the concerns expressed by Mr Le Cornu were entirely misplaced. All of the decisions of the Autorisé in relation to the spoiled ballot papers were upheld and the result shows that the Autorisé was justified in deciding of his own volition not to order a re-count. Deputy Le Claire accepted the result of the re-count without reservation and with good grace. There was no application for costs.
44. We would recommend that consideration be given to reviewing the Jersey Manual to take into account our findings.
Authorities
Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.
UK Electoral Commission's 2010 General Election Returning Officers Manual.
R De Gruchy and R Du Feu (1954) Table Des Décisions de la Cour Royale de Jersey 1951-58.