Representation against the Crown stirs mixed feelings
ACCORDING to section 7 of the Deputies’ Code of Conduct which they must uphold by law (section 20F, paragraph 3 of The Reform (Guernsey) Law, 1948, as amended) States members ‘shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest’.
Furthermore deputies are, before the Royal Court, supposed to swear allegiance to the Crown (or at least I think they are: paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct and sections 19 and 61 of the Law are not easy to reconcile).
I am no fan of having our elected representatives, as soon as they are elected, swearing allegiance to an unelected foreigner whether it be the Queen or anyone else. Neither am I a fan of conflicts of interest.
So, in light of all of the above, I have mixed feelings about Deputy Peter Ferbrache’s recent decision to represent a private client against the Crown Prosecution in the Royal Court. That, together with the lack of official and mainstream media reaction to it, is interesting.
(By ‘official reaction’ I include not only the deputies, who have proven to be surprisingly ignorant regarding the wordings of any oaths which they have taken or statements of allegiance which they have made, but also, perhaps, the Crown prosecutors and the Court, (both of whom one would reasonably expect to have knowledge of the 1948 law and Code of Conduct), who must, given that the case proceeded, have accepted Deputy Ferbrache’s representation against the Crown. By legitimising his representation, have they effectively delegitimised the 1948 Law and/or the Deputies’ code of Conduct?
Life is very confusing when you’re not a lawyer.
MATT WATERMAN,
Flat 2,
3, Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port,
GY1 1HL.