The New Year had started promisingly on the information front.
Not only did we have assurances that information about Court hearings would be put on the Internet – along with details of other tribunals – but other reforms were also to be implemented.
Most important was that the Judicial Greffe issued to us a list of Social Security and Employment Tribunal hearing planned for January 2013.
These are supposed to be public hearings but details have never previously been published beforehand – making it virtually impossible for the public or the press to attend and report on what happens.
Obviously, as with all tribunals and court hearing, it is not only important that justice is done but it must be seen (and heard) to be done.
True justice cannot be delivered in secret.
Obviously there are some matters which parties might prefer to keep confidential in any dispute that goes before a court or tribunal and some cases with regard to children are especially sensitive. But just because a litigant might not want to have their details made public – this is not a reason to hold hearings in secret as a general rule.
Social Security matters are of course especially sensitive for some people but this is usually about the administration of public funds or facilities and the need for the general public to know that such matters are handled properly is especially important.
It is also important that other applicants for Social Security benefits (such as Income Support) can know how other people have been treated. It is most important that the precedents of previous decisions are published and constantly monitored to ensure that fairness runs throughout the system for all.
What’s fit for the goose is fit for the gander etc….
So we ( two members of the public including this SSTAG supporter) duly attended at the Jersey Employment Tribunal offices (1st floor behind the Ann Summers shop in Bath Street) at 1.45pm in time (as advised in advance) for the Social Security Public hearing scheduled for 2.00pm on Monday 7 January.
We had e-mailed to confirm that we intended to attend
This was to be the first SS hearing so far as we know to be actually held “in public”.
The named applicant (a wheelchair user who we call Mrs X) her husband and Deputy Rod Bryans arrived in the meeting room at about 2.10pm and the Chairperson Advocate E. Miller introduced everybody present. Her panel consisted of a Mr Moullin and Doctor Loane.
There were two officers from the Social Security Department seated at a desk plus another seated in the public seats along with yours truly.
Unfortunately, the Chair then advised us that since the applicant wanted to raise personal matters she would prefer that members of the public were not present. Without any discussion on this point we the (two) members of the general public (and/or SSTAG) were then requested to leave - which we did.
Before departing I suggested to the Chair that such a decision should at least have been canvassed in advance so as to avoid wasting public time. Also that it seems to be a matter that needs a more thought out policy and that details of the eventual hearing and decision should be published in the public interest.
This is another matter previously raised.
Deputy Bryans said nothing.
We have contacted the Assistant Judicial Greffier following this experience and await her promised e-mail response. We will publish further details here.
Today, Tuesday 8 January, an Employment Tribunal Hearing is taking place in the same venue from 9.30am re Sonia Seijas v Planet Catering.
This is open to the public as such Employment hearings generally are (though not advertised) and we will report on any interesting matters that arise in due course.
So one step forward and one back on the information front and anybody wanting to have some of the mysteries of the Social Security Department bureaucracy revealed must wait a bit longer….
Perhaps a States Member will ask a few questions?
Initial information is that the Employment Tribunal concerned a Spanish woman with less than 5 years residence working under a contract that might not have been within the termas of a licence - and she was dismissed after breaking a leg and the business went bust. All very complicated but just the sort of dispute that will be arising more and more in the future once the absurd new Identity Cards Register etc begins to bite.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the Social Security hearing we have receieved a response from Deputy Bryans. We propose to publish this ASAP but await his further reply and that from the Judicial Greffe which seems to supervise these tribunals.
There is another Social Security hearing on Thursday 10 January at 2pm (be seated by 1.45pm we are told) and hope to be able to attend this one. A full report will of course follow in due course.
We are now told that Thursday's Social Security tribunal hearing will also be private since it concerns a minor.
ReplyDeleteSo there we have it - two SS hearings and both in private. Of course we shall continue to press this because it is important that information about public administration should be in the public domain. Such inevitable resort to secrecy is not acceptable - but as always where are our States members...shall any of the 51 be asking questions or probing?
The next hearing is an Employment tribunal scheduled for Monday 14 January starting at 9.30pm, namely John Hughes v Helm Trust Ltd.
Hopefully some members of the public will be in attendance to observe and learn about this important aspect of Jersey life. What do you know about employment law? It's no use waiting before you lose your own job and then demanding help and support here there and everywhere.
Another 150 soon to lose their jobs from Play.Com - how many of these will be appearing here behind the Ann Summers shop in the next few months...does anybody care apart from us at SSTAG...
Today's SS tribunal was held in private on the basis that it concerned a minor. We did not attempt to iterfere with the proceedings but spoke with the Chair beforehand.
ReplyDeleteOur concern at the lack of a thought out policy to deal with the public interest remains.
It transpires that the Chair (a lawyer) undergoes no specific training for this duty but sits in on other tribunals to learn the form.
Obviously if there are bad habits in the system then they will be passed on - so the more we delve the more concerned we become.
The simple fact is that the term children includes young adults up to 18 years of age who can vote and might have children of their own. The suggestion that just because a person concerned in a tribunal is "a child" and therefore can demand or have total privacy imposed - is frankly absurd. It is wholly contrary to good practice or as it is developing in other jurisdictions.
We also had it confirmed today that there is no established Jersey procedure to publish a transcript or details of the decision - even in redacted format. Thus total secrecy is maintained, so far as the general public is concerned, through the whole process, from SS administration and decision through to appeal and adjudication. This is totally unnaceptable.
One States Deputy attempted to attend today but went to the Social Security Department rather than round the back of the Ann Summers shop. This says something too about the wholly inadequate location and notification process of these tribuanls - even if the public were to be allowed to observe!
Deputy Rod Bryans has not responded further (following the first secret tribunal hearing) although we have invited him so to do and sent him more details.
We said that we would publish his original e-mail unless he had any objections so here follows a slightly shortened version of that;
"As you say I attended the Tribunal along with Mr and Mrs XXX
Upon arriving they were informed by the receptionist that two members of the public were in attendance. The question was asked by the Chair were they happy with that. It it was Mrs XXX wish they could be asked to leave.
Mrs XXX immediately said she wasn't happy as she was already nervous at having to appear anyway. She spoke to her husband who agreed with her and then she asked for my thought.
I said it was entirely up to her. Whatever she decided would be acted upon.
I personally had no problem with the public attending.
She informed the receptionist who transmitted this to the Chair who then before the proceedings began asked you both to leave.
You then felt aggrieved because you had attended unaware that this could occur. The Advocate addressed your concerns and you left etc..."
Regards
Rod Bryans.
Since Deputy Bryans had already c.copied his e-mail to all other Deputies we too have done this with subsequent e-mails.
Only one other Deputy has so far responded and went to the wrong location for the tribunal hearing.
There has already been much more correspondence with the Judicial Greffier about the procedures being followed regarding these and other tribunals in Jersey.
These are aspects of the administrative and "judicial" system that affect a great many people but are in need of urgent reform.
WE at SSTAG can only do so much....