Customs and Excise (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 201-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 9 July 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2013-0041
Decision Summary Title :	Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Decision Summary:	19 June 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Written Report:	19 June 2013
Written Report Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201- and the accompanying report, and requested that arrangements be made for it to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ for consideration by the States in due course.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201- makes a number of amendments to the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999. It removes references to the Jurats in Articles 37C and 53 where a decision has to be made on whether or not to search a person, because superior officers from the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service are always available, so recourse to a Jurat is not needed. It also amends Article 65 to give the Agent of the Impôts the ability to levy a penalty in respect of an offence relating to excise duties, rather than referring the matter to prosecution.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to arrange for the draft Law to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ for consideration by the States in due course.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Customs and Excise (Amendment No. 7) (Jersey) Law 201-

Report to accompany the Customs and Excise (Amendment No.7) (Jersey) Law 201-

The draft Law makes a number of amendments to the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999 (‘the Law’).

Article 37C falls under Part 5A of the Law, which deals with to the importation and exportation of cash. At the current time the legal limit of cash is 10,000€. Article 37C of the Law relates to people entering and leaving Jersey and reads:

“(1) An officer may require a person entering or leaving Jersey –

(a) to disclose the value of any cash –

(i) contained in his or her baggage, or

(ii) carried with the person;

(b) to answer question in respect of any such cash; and

(2) A person who, when required to produce his or her baggage, refuses or fails to do so, is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of –

(a) level 3 on the standard scale; or

(b) an amount equal to 3 times the value of the cash not disclosed,

whichever is the higher.

(3) Where an officer reasonably suspect that a person entering or leaving Jersey is carrying cash with a value in excess of the proscribed amount, the officer may –

(a) where the officer is of the same sex as the person, search the person; or

(b) request an officer of the same sex as the person to do so.

(4) A person who is to be searched may require to be taken before a Jurat of the Royal Court or a superior of the officer who must –

(a) consider the grounds for the officer’s suspicion; and

(b) direct whether the search is to take place.”

On the basis that the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service have a superior officer on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it was felt that there would be no need to have recourse to a Jurat of the Royal Court and that reference to them could be removed. Article 2 of the draft Law achieves this by deleting the words ‘a Jurat of the Royal Court or’ from paragraph 37C(4).

Article 53 of the Law relates to the power to search persons. Article 53(2) currently stipulates that:

“A person to be searched in pursuance of this Article may require to be taken before a Jurat of the Royal Court or a superior of the officer or other person concerned, who shall consider the grounds for suspicion and direct accordingly whether or not the search is to take place.”

As above, because the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service have a superior officer on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it was felt that there would be no need to have recourse to a Jurat of the Royal Court and that reference to them could be removed. Article 3 of the draft Law achieves this through the substitution of Article 53(2).

Article 65 of the Law relates to the power of the Agent of the Impôts to levy a penalty where a person has committed an offence in relation to the importation or exportation of goods, as an alternative to prosecution. Where a penalty is levied, it is in an amount considered appropriate by the Agent of the Impôts and does not exceed three times the amount of duty payable. Article 65 of the Law currently reads:

(1) Where the Agent of the Impôts considers that a person has committed an offence under this Law in relation to the importation or exportation of goods, he may, instead of referring the matter to a Connétable or Centenier with a view to such person being prosecuted for that offence, accept such sum by way of a penalty, not exceeding three times the level of duty payable or the value of the goods, whichever is the greater, as the Agent of the Impôts considers appropriate.

(2) The fact that a person has paid a penalty under paragraph (1) shall not affect the right of the Attorney General to prosecute that person for any offence under this Law or to direct that he be so prosecuted.

(3) Where a person has paid a penalty under paragraph (1) in relation to an offence for which he is subsequently prosecuted, the amount of such penalty shall be refunded.

It was felt desirable to extend this ability to levy a penalty instead of referring a matter to prosecution in respect of excise duties, in addition to offences relating to the importation or exportation of goods. An example would be where officers from the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service find that someone is illegally using ‘red diesel’ in their vehicle. Article 4 of the draft Law achieves this by the insertion of paragraph (1A).

The insertion of paragraph (1B) places a requirement on the Agent of the Impôts to notify the Attorney General when he accepts a penalty instead of referring the matter to prosecution.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional manpower or financial implications associated with this draft Law.

Human rights

The notes on the human rights aspects of the draft Law in the Appendix have been prepared by the Law Officers’ Department and are included for the information of States Members. They are not, and should not be taken as, legal advice.