Jersey Unreported Judgments

Elections - reasons - Connétable of the Parish of St Brelade Michael Jackson, duly elected.

[2018]JRC083

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 May 2018

Before     :		J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats, Nicolle and Christensen
Between	Her Majesty's Attorney General		Representor
And	Marilyn Carré		First Respondent
And	The witnesses, proposer and seconders to the nomination document		Second to Thirteenth Repondents
And	Michael Jackson		Fourteenth Respondent
And	Peter Norman, Procureur du Bien Public		Fifteenth Respondent
And	Angela Hickinbottom, the Parish Secretary		Sixteenth Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF CONNETABLE OF THE PARISH OF ST BRELADE

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Crown Advocate S. M. Roberts for the Attorney General

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        On 19^th April, 2018, the Court declared the fourteenth respondent, Michael Jackson, duly elected as Connétable of the Parish of St Brelade and we now set out our reasons. 

2.        The application of the Attorney General was made in the context of elections for the office of Connétable of St Brelade ordered by the Court on 23^rd March, 2018, to take place (amongst other elections) on 16^th May 2018, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Public Elections Law") and Article 2 of the Connétable (Jersey) Law 2008. 

3.        The nomination meeting required under Article 19 of the Public Elections Law took place on 11^th April 2018, presided over by the fifteenth respondent, Peter Norman, Procureur du Bien Public.  At the meeting, two candidates were duly proposed and seconded as candidates, namely the first respondent, Marilyn Carré and Michael Jackson.  There being more candidates than vacancies, the election was to proceed by way of poll. 

4.        On 13^th April, 2018, the Attorney General brought an application to the Court ("the first application") in which he said there was evidence that there was an irregularity in the way the nomination form for Marilyn Carré had been completed. 

5.        Article 20(4) of the Public Elections Law provides that the nomination of a candidate for a public election shall be made by the production to a nomination meeting of a document subscribed by a proposer and nine seconders, all ten of whom shall be persons entitled to vote for that candidate in any poll held for the election. 

6.        Article 20(4A) of the Public Elections Law provides that prospective candidates "may indicate his or her wish to have his or her endorsement by a registered political party entered on the ballot paper, by complying with Article 20(4B)". 

7.        Article 20(4B) provides that before the nomination document is subscribed by a proposer and nine seconders:-

"(a) the prospective candidate shall complete a declaration, which shall be contained in that document, of the registered political party by which he or she is endorsed, indicating whether the registered name, or the registered abbreviation (if any) of the name, of the party is to be entered on the ballot paper and

(b)       the declaration shall be signed by -

(i) the prospective candidate, and

(ii) 2 persons (of whom one may be the prospective candidate) who are registered officeholders of the registered political party"

8.        In the first application, the Attorney General said there was evidence to suggest that the proposer and seconders had signed the nomination form for Marilyn Carré before she had signed and had witnessed the declaration that she wished to be endorsed by Reform Jersey. 

9.        On the 13^th April, 2018, the Court convened the respondents to the first application. 

10.      On 17^th April, 2018, Marilyn Carré gave notice to the Court under Article 23(A1) of the Public Elections Law that she was withdrawing as a candidate, which would leave Michael Jackson as the sole candidate.  No reasons for her withdrawal were given. 

11.      Article 23(A1) of the Public Elections Law is in these terms:-

"(A1)   A candidate may, between the day of his or her nomination and the day fixed for the poll, withdraw his or her candidacy by notifying the Royal Court in writing.

(1) If a candidate in a constituency is disqualified, or dies, between the day of his or her nomination and the day fixed for the poll, the person who presided at the nomination meeting shall report that event to the Royal Court as soon as possible.

(2) If a candidate withdraws, as referred to in paragraph (A1), or is disqualified, or dies, as referred to in paragraph (1), the Court may make such order as it thinks fit in all the circumstances of the case, whether an order that the election proceed despite the withdrawal, disqualification or death, an order annulling the proceedings already taken, a fresh order under Article 17 for an election in the constituency, or any other order (whether instead of or in addition to those orders)."

12.      In the light of the withdrawal as a candidate of Marilyn Carré, the Attorney General issued a second representation on 17^th April, 2018, ("the second application"), requesting the Court to make an order under the provisions of Article 23(2). 

13.      The first application of the Attorney General was withdrawn, with leave.

14.      At the hearing of the second application on the 19^th April, 2018, the Court heard submissions from Crown Advocate Roberts on behalf of the Attorney General, and was also addressed by Michael Jackson and Peter Norman, Procureur du Bien Public, who were entitled to be heard as convened parties.  Marilyn Carré had indicated that she would not be attending the hearing. 

15.      Crown Advocate Roberts informed us that if Marilyn Carré had not withdrawn and it transpired under the first application, having heard evidence, that the proposer and seconders were aware of her wish to be endorsed by Reform Jersey, then it was the Attorney General's intention to propose to the Court that her candidature be confirmed, and the election proceed. 

16.      As it was, she had withdrawn and Crown Advocate Roberts said the Court had three options under Article 23(2):-

(i)        to declare Michael Jackson duly elected on the basis that there was only one candidate for one office;

(ii)       order the holding of a new nomination meeting;

(iii)      order a fresh election on a new date to be fixed after 16^th May, 2018.

17.      The Court's instinctive approach was to ensure, where it was proper to do so, the widest choice of candidates at the election, and it explored therefore with the assistance of the Judicial Greffier, Advocate Paul Matthews, whether it was feasible to order a new nomination meeting within the timescale of the current election.  Without going into the detail of that discussion, it was clear that although the timetable would be very tight indeed, it was possible to do so if the nomination meeting took place on 25^th April.  There were implications to proceeding that way:-

(i)        It might mean that voters who had indicated that they wished to vote by post, because they would be out of the Island, would be disenfranchised.  The maximum number of voters who it could affect in this way would be 46. 

(ii)       The public manifesto booklet, certainly in so far as it related to this office, might not be ready before pre-polling started on 30^th April, 2018, and it is important that the voters be fully informed.  

(iii)      As it would be an entirely new nomination meeting, there would be nothing to prevent Marilyn Carré from putting herself forward again as a candidate.  Whilst we stress there was nothing to suggest that she would do this or was trying to get round alleged defects in her nomination form by withdrawing in the hope of triggering a new nomination meeting, we had a sense of unease that any candidate who had withdrawn from an election could put himself or herself forward again for that same election.  

(iv)      Crown Advocate Roberts pointed out that the Public Elections (Expenses and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014 places strict limits on a candidate's election expenses and to the extent that Michael Jackson had already incurred expenses in a campaign against Marilyn Carré, no allowance for that expenditure could be made for a campaign conducted against any new candidate who put his or her name forward at a new nomination meeting. 

18.      If there has been three candidates for this one office, then it seemed to the Court that all things being equal, the withdrawal of one should not prevent the election proceeding for the others, and it was difficult to see why the position should be any different if there were two candidates for one office, and one of those two candidates then withdrew.  That is how we understood the Court proceeded in an unreported case in 2014. 

19.      However, even if we were minded to order a new nomination meeting, we concluded that it would not be proper to do so.  Article 19(2) of the Public Elections Law provides that only one nomination meeting can take place:-

"(2)     There shall be one such nomination meeting for each constituency in which there is to be a public election."

20.      That nomination had taken place, and Michael Jackson was duly nominated as a candidate.  The Court could not order a second nomination meeting without exercising its powers under Article 23 (2) to annul the first nomination meeting, thus ensuring compliance with the provisions of Article 19(2).  

21.      There was no evidence of any irregularity in the way that the nomination meeting had been conducted.  The two nomination forms placed before the meeting were on their face valid (there had been no finding that the form of Marilyn Carré was invalid) and as far as we were aware, all of the other formalities for the conduct of the meeting had been complied with.  Michael Jackson had a legitimate expectation that his candidature would go forward to the election on the 16^th May, 2018, and he had no doubt proceeded to campaign, and incur expenditure, on that basis.  In our view, there were no grounds upon which we could properly annul that nomination meeting and remove Michael Jackson's candidature from him. 

22.      Article 21(1) provides:-

"(1)     If in a constituency there are not more candidates for public elections than vacancies, the candidates are taken to have been elected........"

23.      The position, put simply, was this:-

(i)        The nomination meeting took place on 11^th April, 2018, and two candidates were duly nominated for election to one office.

(ii)       One of the candidates, Marilyn Carré, had now withdrawn, leaving one candidate, Michael Jackson, for one office.

(iii)      It followed that Michael Jackson was entitled to be declared duly elected.

24.      The Court ordered accordingly. 

Authorities

Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

Connétable (Jersey) Law 2008.

Public Elections (Expenses and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014.