Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Procedure) (Jersey) Regs 2000

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (08.03.06) to agree to promote an amendment to Paragraph 5 of the Discipline Code, set out in the Schedule to the Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Regulations 2000.

Subject:	Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Regulations 2000 – proposed amendment
Decision Reference:	MD-HA-2006-0022	Exempt clause(s):
Type of Report (oral or written):		Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?		Report File ref:		HAD/DPT 9
Written Report – Title:	Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Regulations 2000	Written report – Author:		Karen Slack Executive Officer Home Affairs
Decision(s): To agree to promote an amendment to Paragraph 5 of the Discipline Code, which is set out in the Schedule to the Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Regulations 2000.
Reason(s) for decision: The Attorney General has highlighted a difficulty in the use of the word “knowingly” in Paragraph 5 of the Discipline Code, which states, “Officers must never knowingly use more force than is reasonable, nor should they abuse their authority”. It is felt that it should not be a defence for an Honorary Police Officer to show that they did not realise that they were using more force than was reasonable. The Jersey Police Complaints Authority is supportive of the amendment. The Honorary Police Association and the Comité des Connétables have been alerted to the proposed amendment.
Action required: The Executive Officer to provide law drafting instructions to the Law Draftsman to give effect to the amendment.
Signature: (Minister/ Assistant Minister)			Date of Decision:

Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Procedure) (Jersey) Regs 2000 - Amendment

POLICE (HONORARY POLICE COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE) ( JERSEY ) REGULATIONS 2000

POLICE (COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE) ( JERSEY ) ORDER 2000

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Police (Honorary Police Complaints and Discipline Procedure) ( Jersey ) Regulations 2000

Background

The Attorney General would like an amendment to the above Regulations to be promoted. In 2005 a disciplinary hearing in relation to a complaint made against a member of the Honorary Police brought to light a difficulty in respect of the Schedule to the above Regulations, which sets out the Discipline Code.

Paragraph 5 of the Discipline Code states:

“Use of force and abuse of authority

Officers must never knowingly use more force than is reasonable, nor should they abuse their authority.”

The difficulty encountered in the disciplinary hearing centred on the use of the word “knowingly”. This would appear to relate to the use of more force than is reasonable, and would apparently signify that an Honorary Police Officer has not acted in breach of the Discipline Code if, whilst using more force than is reasonable, they are able to show that they did not do so knowingly.

The view of the Attorney General is that in the context of the disciplinary offence of abusing their authority, or using more force than is reasonable, it should not be a defence for an Honorary Police Officer to show that they did not realise that they were using more force than was reasonable.

Proposed amendment

The view of the Attorney General is that the word ‘knowingly’ should be removed from this Part of the Code. It is acknowledged that there will be occasions where an Honorary Police Officer may genuinely misread a situation, and use force, which is subsequently shown to be excessive. However, they will have the defence to a charge in relation to such an offence if they can show that at the time the force that they were using was no more than was appropriate. This would enable them to argue that they had used reasonable force. The Attorney General feels that the question of what is ‘reasonable’ should not depend on the state of knowledge of the Honorary Police Officer, but should, rather, be an objective test.

The proposed amendment would be something akin to:

“Officers must never use more force than is reasonable in all the circumstances, nor should they abuse their authority.”

The Attorney General has discussed this proposed amendment with the Jersey Police Complaints Authority, which is supportive. He has also drawn the proposal to the attention of the Honorary Police Association and the Comité des Connétables. He believes that the Honorary Police Association is supportive, although he has not received a formal response, but has not received any substantive comment from the Comité des Connétables.

Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) ( Jersey ) Order 2000

Background

Schedule 1 to the above Order sets out the Discipline Code for Officers of the States of Jersey Police Force. Paragraph 5 of the Code is identical to that set out above for Honorary Police Officers, namely:

“Use of force and abuse of authority

Officers must never knowingly use more force than is reasonable, nor should they abuse their authority.”

It is a previously accepted position that it is desirable to ensure that the Discipline Codes for both the States of Jersey Police and the Honorary Police are on similar terms. It follows therefrom that if it is felt appropriate to amend the Honorary Police Regulations, it would also be appropriate to amend the States of Jersey Police Order.

Proposed amendment

As detailed above, the Attorney General feels that the term ‘knowingly’ should be removed from this Paragraph of the Code, and feels that paragraph 5 should be amended to read something akin to:

“Officers must never use more force than is reasonable in all the circumstances, nor should they abuse their authority.”

He has consulted with the Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police, who has, in turn, consulted with the Police Association and other colleagues and their view is that provided that an officer who uses force which is “reasonable in all the circumstances” suffers no prejudice, then they are content for the term ‘knowingly’ to be dispensed with.

The Jersey Police Complaints Authority are also content with the proposed amendment.

Recommendation

I recommend that the Minister agrees to promote the amendments as requested by the Attorney General, and requests the Executive Officer to provide law drafting instructions to the Law Draftsman to give effect to the amendments.

Miss K. L. Slack

Executive Officer, Home Affairs

20th December 2005