Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Review of Camera Surveillance in Jersey

Terms of reference

The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel has agreed to undertake a review relating to the increasing prevalence of camera surveillance in the Island. The review will seek to ensure that the use of camera surveillance is reasonable, justifiable and transparent so that Islanders feel properly informed about and are able to support the security measures that are in place.

The Panel will

·    Consider the scale of usage of camera surveillance in Jersey by the States of Jersey, commercial and non-commercial  agencies

·    Explore the role played by camera surveillance in policing, community safety, transport and in the criminal justice system

·    Examine evidence for the effectiveness of camera surveillance in preventing and detecting crime and promoting public safety

·    Explore public awareness of camera surveillance in Jersey

·    Consider any concerns relating to the extent and purpose of intrusion into people’s lives

·    Establish the effectiveness of current guidelines/voluntary codes of best practice and their operation

·    Establish the rights of access to information and camera footage by citizens and what rights employees have in relation to camera surveillance by their employers.

·    Consider whether there is a need to develop the formal regulation of the use of camera surveillance.

The Panel will consult stakeholders and the public on what information should be available to any individual wishing to know more about overt surveillance cameras and how this information should be made available.

The Panel will report its findings to the States

Further explanatory note

The review will be concerned with the overt use of systems such as CCTV and ANPR (Automated Number Plate Recognition) in public and semi-public places where people can generally see a camera, or are informed about its presence. It will not deal with covert surveillance techniques which are legislated for through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005.

 

This (below) is my initial memorandum prepared for the consultant experts engaged by the Scrutiny Panel.

It is not intended as a complete or final submission but to flag up some of the differences that will be encouncountered in Jersey where, for example, privacy is all important in the finance industry but not so important on the streets of St Helier etc where CCTV cameras proliferate.

More discrimination is encountered in other aspects of the "Jersey way of life" and surveillance policies reflect this.

So far no expert adviser on Human Rights has been appointed by the Scrutiny Panel so far as I am aware and it is doubtful if anybody suitable will be found from among  local lawyers .

Public submissions will no doubt soon be invited by the Panel.

Jersey surveillance, scrutiny, serfs, servility and surfing…                 1 of 7

There are at least two distinct standards of privacy in Jersey.

For normal residents who move around the streets in the open, enter and leave buildings, catch buses etc there is constant CCTV surveillance which may in some instances, include audio recording.

On the other hand, the primary commercial activity of the Island – as a Finance Centre employing 12,000 people - is founded upon providing “secrecy” for thousands of wealthy individuals and companies.

Thus, although the 100,000 residents who live in Jersey enjoy only minimal standards of everyday privacy, those unknown numbers who simply exist here behind a business nameplate have their confidentiality vigorously protected – at least in theory - by an army of professionals and a whole governmental and political philosophy.

Of course, the 21^st century obsession with collecting information ensures that all our activities are now monitored in some way or other and data is extracted and stored about all aspects of our lives and even the very composition of our being.

We are spied upon from the sky whilst Google cameras follow us around the streets posting images of our homes and secure places across the world for all to see. Even if we wanted to curtail these intrusive activities we are powerless so to do and the business interests involved are just simply too big and powerful to challenge. Not just at an individuals rights’ level either – “too big” means even for the Jersey government to challenge in many cases.

Whilst mobile ‘phones ensure that our precise personal location is known day and night, wherever it might be, Jersey provides a safe “haven” for many corporations, trusts, foundations and other legal creations with world-wide interests and assets of £Billions…although Jersey’s total annual budget is less than £700 millions.

I have been lobbying for some years in Jersey for governmental examination of the “surveillance” activity in this Island.

The partial Scrutiny Inquiry that has now been announced (April 2013) is a start but remains a very incomplete response.

It is no longer appropriate to separate “camera” based surveillance from the myriad of data collection that takes place whenever we use a ‘phone, draw money from a bank, make a purchase, eat at a café,  travel, consult a doctor, borrow a book, watch TV…

Only last week the Jersey Minister of Health gave absolute assurances in the States about the security of Islanders’ medical files – but it was a particularly hollow undertaking since she had no idea where they were supposedly securely stored!

The sheds of many old Jersey farms are stuffed with the “secure files” of many Finance businesses but whether their world-wide clients would sleep so easily if they realised this is not obvious.

The recent escape of data files from the HSBC in Jersey to the UK Revenue is just the latest among many likely “whistle-blowing” incidents around the world.

No matter how wealthy or powerful, it seems that security cannot be assured or bought. So what chance that mere regulation might protect Joe or Jill Bloggs on an everyday basis? Is there even any point in trying…?

As a blogger (no pun intended) I am constantly rebuffed by government departments and refused the sight of “press releases” or to speak with officials etc because I am not “accredited media”. Yet, as we all know, it is the very same self-regulating “accredited” press and broadcasting organisations such as the late News of the World and the BBC that have dragged the reputation of journalism to its lowest ever levels through one ethical failure after another. Yet we are supposed to rely upon a healthy “free press” for so much of the information that we receive! It was a BBC Panorama TV team that undertook a “concealed camera” interview at a Jersey Bank to reveal potentially illegal money laundering a few years ago – was this a justified intrusion of privacy?

Self regulation – leaving it to the “professionals”- has been revealed as the total con-trick that GBS described decades ago…yet the several dozen “free spirited” bloggers in Jersey and many hundreds in the UK have behaved remarkably well in contrast.

Now we are promised some sort of new Royal Charter to beef-up a media regulatory framework (which may or may not include bloggers etc) – but how this might be applied to Jersey and the other Dependencies is not at all clear.

As usual, the government and administration of Jersey will almost certainly await the initiative of others and for costly and complicated legislation to be drafted elsewhere. Any local application will most likely be on an informal, non statutory basis and useless.

Unfortunately, Jersey has a very weak history so far as human rights and basic freedoms are concerned.

The Island’s own three hundreds or so locally grown lawyers are far too busy protecting their “tax dodging” clients’ interests to be concerned in such matters for the general population. There is no “Human Rights” committee in the commercially obsessed local Society of Lawyers - in an Island where there is no human rights’ compliant legal aid scheme in existence and a dire lack of published legal information on everyday matters.

It is wholly predictable that there is still no proper “Freedom of Information” legislation either – just a voluntary code.

Similarly, there is still no anti-discrimination legislation in place – and none actually planned to be implemented for years to come.

This is against a background of blatant disregard for international human rights standards. Those, such as the UN Conventions to eliminate discrimination against women, to protect the rights of the child or the rights of disabled people have still not even been ratified for Jersey…

                                                                                                                                         

Conversely, Human Rights treaties that have been ratified such as the European Convention (ECHR – enshrined since 2006 within Jersey Law) or the UN Covenants on Civil or Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are hardly made accessible or meaningful.

A complete and accurate statement of the treaties etc that do apply in Jersey does not exist in the public domain.

Although the Island Plan as prepared by the Planning and Environment Department commences with the claim that “over 350 International treaties” etc have to be considered in preparing this most “important” document – my request for a list of these has consistently fallen on deaf ears. Only a few treaties are actually even mentioned within the Plan’s many pages. It is just another facet of the misleading use of information or suppression by government and others of that which might actually be useful to the general public.

It is not just the ordinary Joe and Jill either that can be adversely affected by Jersey’s obscure or unusual practices.

Jersey’s Chief of Police – a very senior officer recruited from the UK- was suspended from his Jersey post in 2010 and subsequently retired. The only outstanding complaint seemed to be centred on the files of “Operation Blast” which was a supposed surveillance and information gathering project operated by the police against Jersey’s elected politicians. He has protested his unfair treatment ever since.

The Acting Chief-Officer who took over from him retired after a short period citing the unlikely excuse of “blogger interference” and left the Island, presumably with his pension assured.

During 2011 the Chief Executive Officer of the States Civil Service retired early taking a £500,000 pay off, the conditions of which he wrote for himself. He cited “bullying” by politicians.

A senior consultant surgeon at the Jersey General Hospital was suspended on full pay in 2006 for four years from active duties after the death of a nurse/patient following an operation.

He retired without returning fully to work but with nearly £½million compensation and he described himself as a “scapegoat.” Total cost of his suspension was £3millions and the subsequent enquiry revealed substantial management failures in the hospital and health service.

A supposed gang of drug smugglers was arrested, convicted and sentenced in 2007 to long periods in prison on conspiracy to import charges. The basis of the police case was surveillance operations in Jersey, the UK and on the Continent named “Operation Floss” and “Flare” which included illegal bugging of a vehicle and telephone conversations.                                                                                                             

Senior Judges in court described the illegal police activity as “a reprehensible and unlawful act” but the evidence was still accepted and the convictions stood. Most of the prisoners are now released.

One Senior Jersey Police officer only remains under suspension.

This case highlights the potential problem that arises under the terms of reference for the current Scrutiny Panel regarding “covert” police activities which are supposedly excluded. But how might illegal police surveillance be treated? Shall covert illegal monitoring be included – especially if the court determines (as they have in this case) that such evidence need not be rejected? For covert read overt?

One blogger has suggested that this whole case was a set-up with international communications corporations behind it. He argued that these large organisations are only present in Jersey (a very small market) because they use the jurisdiction as a base for testing new - sometimes dubious - surveillance products. It is a novel suggestion and makes a change from the usual “tax advantage” reasoning.

Jersey’s Comptroller and Auditor General was forced to resign in 2012 following an acrimonious Scrutiny Panel examination regarding the proposed Police HQ and an exchange of disputed  e-mails.

(Strangely, a telephonist still answers his office ‘phone in his name (April 2013) although another person has been appointed and works from the CM’s department)

The Jersey senior designate-Magistrate is currently in jail following conviction, with others, on fraud charges. He has protested his innocence.

The Jersey Dean’s commission is currently suspended by the Bishop of Winchester following allegations of his failure to follow Church of England “safeguarding procedures” regarding sexual abuse claims from a vulnerable adult.

There is now dispute over the constitutional relationships of the Church in Jersey, the Dean’s appointment and the appropriate disciplinary body with much political lobbying taking place.

International police bodies are currently searching for a former Jersey based accountant who is currently sought in connection with the alleged missing £20 millions investment of an Australian film-star cum confessed tax dodger.

The accountant’s former Jersey partner is already in an Australian jail following conviction for that country’s biggest ever tax evasion case.

Such huge international swindles arise regularly in the Finance Industry but are seldom initiated in Jersey. They mostly come to public notice in courts overseas and only revert to Jersey during the quest for hidden loot.

The use and mis-use of information runs throughout such cases as those listed briefly above. But where might Jersey Joe or Jill discover the truth?                                 

Accuracy, like beauty, is to some extent in the eye of the beholder but the means by which reliable facts might be made available to the general public has certainly not yet been discovered in Jersey.

It is important to consider such cases in the specific context of Jersey, where surveillance and data-gathering are intense activities, against a background of “official secrecy” in the Finance Industry. Added to this is the lack of investigative journalism and a government that is constantly filling the information void with “good news” PR statements through its “Communication Units” and other agencies.

No wonder then that Blogging has erupted in Jersey on such a scale to fill the information and “free speech” gap? There is nothing comparable in Guernsey or the Isle of Man.

Jersey now shares its Data Protection Commissioner with Guernsey and employs a very small staff to deal with the many potential issues that could arise in two distinct Bailiwicks, with differing laws and practices etc.

What happens in other places with regard to the “regulation” of data access is beyond the scope of this memorandum but suffice to point out that the avenues open for complaint or redress are very few in Jersey..

There is no Jersey Ombudsman – although it is often discussed as needed for all sorts of dispute resolutions matters.

The Complaints Board is a very inadequate tribunal that hears about a dozen disputes only each year against administrative decisions of the government. It is cumbersome, decisions cannot be enforced and costs are not awarded.

The Board does not initiate complaints, as happens in some other small jurisdictions.

Resort to the expensive courts and the employment of Jersey lawyers at exorbitant fees is the sole remedy for many whilst others must suffer in silence.

The Jersey Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) provides a helpful service but is severely restricted against giving advice on Jersey Law matters due to local professional constraints.

That there is only one “local” newspaper is not inevitable – there were several in the distant past – but falling advertising revenue is making traditional newspaper publication a world-wide problem. The Jersey Evening Post (JEP) and Guernsey Press are both owned by the same UK publishing group and have similar formats with ever-increasing “syndicated” content.

Since over £300,000 of JEP revenue p.a. derives from “Gazette” type official advertising from the Jersey government it is not surprising that the editorial content is seldom critical of government policy.

BBC Jersey provides a “local” radio and TV broadcasting service which is seldom politically challenging and caters mostly for a “mature” conservative audience. Much of the output is of a dismal “disc jockey” standard with presentation staff to suit.

Channel TV is the ITV outlet serving the Channel Islands. Its “local” and original content is the minimum that will satisfy UK licensing demands.                                             

Revenue appears to be generated largely upon a tax advantaged re-routing of UK programmes for national consumption.

Radio Channel 103 is a commercial radio station that caters for an audience with empty heads which are ideally filled with noise and advertising jingles.

As if the knowledge void was not already complete, Jersey has no political parties so that the 51 elected politicians are left largely to their own devices so far as research is concerned or to their own prejudices when making decisions.

There are very few Island NGOs and lobby groups tend to be one-subject orientated – often related to a specific disease or charitable cause.

Alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness and suicide are all at a high level of incidence so that the PR image of a wealthy, carefree holiday Island with pretty brown cows grazing in green pastures alongside fields of Royal potatoes may be considered as somewhat misleading.

Whilst not wanting to paint too bleak a picture – it is necessary to refer to the “discrimination” that is enshrined in Jersey law and social policies.

The UK government had the good sense to abandon its ID cards with photos plan some years ago – but the project lives on in Jersey. At least, the card does, although the “photo” and micro-chip part is currently on hold.

This “registration card” is an essential part of the new (2013), “improved” attempt to “limit population growth” through immigration controls coupled with housing and work restraints. All Islanders wanting work or moving home will soon have to produce a card proving their residential status.

There are to be four categories of residential and work qualification;

Registered (the non-qualified)

Entitled to work only (those with 5 years residence)

Licensed (those currently with J-category, essentially employed status)

Entitled (those who have lived in the Island for 10 years or more)

All those moving to Jersey must register when they apply for a job and pay a fee to the Social Security Department.

Employers need a licence to employ anyone who has lived in the Island for less than five years.

Clearly, such a system of control requires surveillance and enforcement.

There will be inspectors, spot checks, policing, arrests and prosecutions.

Data will be collected from all government and administrative departments such as Social Security, Health and Medical records, Income Tax, Driving and Car Licences, TV licences, Rates and Parish records, Electoral rolls, Telephone Directories, Libraries, Police and Criminal data resources, Courts, schools etc.

Inevitably there will be mission creep and leakage. Accuracy of stored information will be subject to keyboard and cognisance skills of staff in a community which has an ever  changing and international make-up. Many names will be entered incorrectly into the data base “register” which will take years to compile and need constant revision.

Qualifications and status for some people can be lost through absence from the Island.

On the plus side, those who have not achieved 10 years residence will enjoy the right to lease a property with security of tenure (a new right from 2013).

This package of restrictions is being applied already. Those without 5 years residence are being “eased” out of the job-market to make way for unemployed “locals.”

More tolerance is to be shown in the “Hospitality” and “Agriculture” sectors of employment where many vacancies are low paid, seasonal or temporary and not attractive to permanent residents.

A policy of revoking “licences” is already being implemented when workers without five years residence leave a job, in order to free up that vacancy for “locals” only.

Many people in Jersey resort to unofficial or not approved places to “live” such as sheds, garages, boats, camper-vans, a friend’s floor etc. These will have to be declared under this new improved plan since all workers will have to produce evidence of a bona fide address …

Since 1949 Jersey has had a Housing Law which has sought to limit population growth by making it more difficult (or impossible) for many people to rent or buy proper living accommodation. Since 1970, this has resulted in the perverse situation where 10,000 (ever changing) working adults (about one fifth of the working population) do not enjoy equitable housing and employment rights.

During this period Jersey has followed a policy of economic and population growth (from 70,000 to the present 100,000) but the community is divided by such discrimination policies and this is now to be subject to the surveillance and regulation of the “registration card” system. Although the official economic plan calls for further ”growth” the inevitable population expansion makes it impossible ever to satisfy the demand for housing accommodation or employment opportunities for all with equity.

Discrimination has therefore become the accepted control tool and is enshrined in law, policy and the Island’s mindset.

It is necessary to comprehend that Jersey is not just a slightly strange part of the UK.

The laws and policies here are substantially different although much information and some opinions arrive here (via the UK media) and there is a superficial appearance of “sameness”.

Many employers are UK based and may follow more or less UK standards on staff employment, voluntarily.

Businesses such as security providers (G4S employs 500 staff in Jersey) may follow UK guidelines and practices but this is not inevitable.

Any examination of something like “surveillance” must draw upon practices elsewhere but the Jersey difference has to be fully considered too. I offer these observations as an introduction to some of the differences that need to be considered.                       7 end

Sport Green Paper - discussion - time running out for comment

Stewart Lobb  recorded this interview for Tom Gruchy recently with Assistant Minister Deputy Roy Le Herissier, Hugh Raymond and Roy Travert.
Only a few weeks remain now for the general public to submit views or to lobby their States members about the many important isues raised.

This discussion is not just about "sport" in Jersey. There is a whole debate about the healthy options of using exercise as a means of reducing the "care" bill and who should pay for the many and varied facilities that are needed or are fashionable...

"User Pays" and "privatisation", the future of  Fort Regent and the provision of public swimming pools etc etc are all facets of the discussion that needs to take place in a communityt that is now struggling to fund present and future hospitalisation, treatment and care options.

As always the proper provision of all facilities including decent housing, adequate social security provision, care of those with illness or disabilities and such like are integral aspects of the whole caring community package - but who shall pay?

No such thing as "society" in Jersey?

Following last week's  appearance of CM Ian Gorst before the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel consisting of Sen Sarah Ferguson, Deputies Power and Rondel with Constable Murphy - I was preparing a lengthy scribble with all sorts of moralistic arguments and suchlike....

This seemed especially relevant since the death of Margaret Thatcher had been announced that day and CM Gorst was saying how the Ozouf Jersey savings plan was still operative and another £20 millions had to be clawed back this year from public spending....

...he was backing that up with calls to refuse any further TU pay claims for States' workers and that the persistently unemployed may face reductions in Income Support soon if they cannot find work etc to encourage them ...
...and the Panel members were inviting him to be even more "Thatcherite" in his policies...though they did not describe it in that way...
and Gorst joked at one stage about no handbags being hidden under the table....
and I had even asked him before the meeting commenced if State funerals were likely to be introduced in Jersey for passing leaders....

and it was all rather jolly in a cosy surreal sort of way...

but the next day Sen Ozouf announced that he had found another £30 millions under his Treasury bed and was scattering it about in payments to the Rugby team,  promoting the Royal Mace (where oh where did that crazy idea come from!!!), the £10 millions Innovation Fund and similar bizarre projects which did not seem to have much relationship with the real probelms that so many people face in this divided Island...

and as the week progressed and the post Thatcherite divisions in UK society (apparently there is such a thing in spite of what she claimed) were discussed more and more with increasing bitterness and acrimony being displayed....

it just simply became too absurd to endure - so I tore up my original text (pressed delete in fact) and called upon Ian (the blogger - not the CM) for some help in the image department and he produced this montage for me...

and although this does not describe all my anger and frustration  it adequately hints at my feelings about this Jersey government which will dish out £200,000 to a crazy film project - with virtually no checks or security - whilst it treats so many working and non-working people with such contempt...

and I realised that the ethos of Mrs Thatcher's brand of capitalism is most certainly not dead in Jersey and it won't be buried with her this week either...

I feel a bit better now.

Darius and a different approach to Jersey employment

It is not unusual to treat employers as the bad guys when disputes with employees arise. In Jersey there are over 5,000 small businesses that have five or fewer staff.

Out of a total of 53,000 employed people there are about 800 wholesale and retail employers and Darius - who features in the 17 minutes video below - is in this category.
He runs a small retail business in central St Helier employing one or sometimes two staff.

Except that Darius has unusual views about his employees status because he would prefer that they were classed as "self employed" but of course, the Social Security Department does not share that view.

The difficulty that is described here came about because a young woman left employment with Darius following a dispute and took her grievance to JACS (the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service) from where it proceeded to a hearing before JET (the Jersey Employment Tribunal) via the Royal Court.

Because Darius considered her to be "self-employed" there was no contract of employment and so it was difficult to determine what "contract rights" if any, had been broken.

Like so many of Jersey's small businesses, workers are often employed under vague conditions and there is no Trades Union involvement.

We have been trying to monitor the hearings before JET which are supposed to be held in public but this hearing was not announced and we had no knowledge of it until it was all over. Except that the JEP had previously reported some aspects of the Court hearing months after if actually took place and in a manner which was not at all accurate according to Darius.

After many months, waste of time and cost to the public of £thousands the matter was finally resolved because Darius and his ex-assistant were willing to agree on a settlement of a payment of less than £500.

This Darius says, could have easily been achieved if only JACS had  been more reasonable at the outset.

We offer this interview with Darius to show that small businesses do have particular problems which may not be appropriate for JACS and JET to deal with as currently constituted. This is a viewpoint that the Jersey Chamber of Commerce seems to share and there is already a move to undo some Employment laws.
On the other hand we have observed instances where small businesses have treated staff very badly and that JACS etc provide a most important safety net  giving valuable support to people in very stressed circumstances.

We will try to find an ex-employee to interview in the near future to illustrate the other side of the problem but we note with some concern that employers - such as the States - often require job applicants to declare if they are involved in disputes with previous employers! This is hardly a climate to encourage workers to come forward to be interviewed for fear of being stigmatised in the job market-place.
Now that un-employment is rising in Jersey, potential employees are very wary of expressing any critical views in public...

We thank Darius for his time and frankness.

More on hearings...

WE continue to lobby and monitor re so called "public hearings" and tribunals etc in Jersey.

The Employment Tribunal is now undertaking a project to put the times and dates of future hearings on-line and has a member of staff specifically working on this project.
In the meantime the JET office - behind the Ann Summers business in Bath Street - sticks a notice on its door at midday on a Friday with details of any meeting planned for the coming week. Hardly satisfactory but that is the state of play there...
We have as yet no further information on Social Security Appeals which are handled by this same office but so far we have been exluded from these supposedly "public" hearings.

The States Greffe advises that there are no Complaints Board hearings currently planned but one is in the pipeline. When and where this might take place is subject to whim - often the hearings take place in Parish Halls and may be closed to the public if deemed "necessary."

We contacted the Judicial Greffier/Viscount some months ago re publishing details of all Court Hearing and Inquests.
There has been some improvement and the electronic screen in the lobby to the main entrance to the States building in Royal Square is now working again and includes inquest times.
We have asked that more details of the nature of hearings might be made available because generally the public have no idea what the cases are about unless personally involved.
We are advised that this aspect is being considered as something to put on the super-duper web-site that is now being  "worked on."

Of course we always remind officials that not everybody has access to IT facilities and that there is still a need for a central access point(s) to a comprehensive list of public hearings due - say on a weekly basis. This should be available at the States and Judicial Greffes, CAB and Parish Halls for a start.

This could be extended to include details of ALL official public meetings and hearings that are to take place such as Scrutiny, Parish meetings etc.

The simple external notice board on the wall of the Royal Court building that lists some pending court matters and Scrutiny meetings/hearings is totally inadequate and is of course not accessible to everybody. It is not always kept up to date.

On being able to access buildings and to be able to hear the proceedings are matters that we continue to lobby on.

We have written yet again to the Bailiff''s Office about poor sound quality in ALL the courts and this has clearly beeen circulated because we have received the reply below regarding the Magistrates' newly built facilities.

Attending at the States Chamber recently to hear a judgment (the building is sometimes used as a court) and having climbed the impossible staircase to the public gallery we found that the sound system (for which we had lobbied so long) was not turned on. So nothing could be heard  - but a written copy of the "Non Reported" judgment has been provided subsequently.

Signs are another matter of concern. We have asked that all officials in court or other hearings should display their names so that litigants and members of the public can identify who they are.
The Magistrates' court says that names of Judges sitting are posted outside the courts in session but there are other anonymous officials present too. The same applies to Royal Court hearings - especially bearing in mind that hearings often take place in  unusual locations.
This week's Royal Court proceedings with a video link to Curtis Warren in his UK prison actually took place in the Magistrates Court....and is the sort of high profile case that could attract public interest.

It is noted that the JEP is publishing much more (but selective) information recently about future hearings etc and we presume that more details are being issued by the Communications Unit of the States or some other body.
Unfortunately, whatever the source of this information - it is not sent to bloggers!
We do not receive any Press Releases either - so remember this if YOU are participating in any such events  to keep US informed.

REMEMBER ALSO that information is business. The JEP receives over £300,000 each year to publish official States notices in the Gazette etc and there is much other printing and publishing work to be had.
So keeping the general public in the dark is all part of the scheme - FREE information brings OZO and his friends out in spots. That is why the States Greffe Bookshop loooks like it is running a closing down sale these days and offers so few printed leaflets for free....

The Magistrates Court responded.....

 I have been asked to respond to your email in regards to the Magistrate's Court.  I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties in regards to No 2 Court so perhaps the following will supply some measure of assurance.

All 3 courts within the Magistrate's Court have enhanced hearing to the public gallery via the digital recording system relayed to loud speakers.  This relies upon all parties speaking clearly so that the microphone can 'pick' up what is said and the system can relay this.  At times the Magistrate has to remind people of this or request that the person speaks clearly.

In additions, all 3 courts also have a hearing loop systems for those who are hard at hearing.

In regards to No 2 Court: a member of the Communication Department was on site today and I asked him to check the voice re-enforcement system with me.  A Centenier was also present and assisted with this task.  Neither one of us had any difficulty with hearing what was said at various points of the public gallery.  I also sat in a number of points in the public gallery whilst a court was in session to ensure the sound re-enforcement was working and, again, I had little difficulty hearing what was said in court

However, I do appreciate that you must feel  frustrated when you have difficulties as outlined so I have asked the Communications Dept. to undertake a complete check of the hearing loop system.  The Magistrates are also aware of this issue and will ensure, wherever possible,  that all parties talk clearly and that a microphone is nearby to pick up the sounds.

I trust that these measures will address your concerns but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information.

yours sincerely

Magistrate's Court Greffier

More information but learning less about Social Security decisions and procedures

This is the latest exchange of emails with the Judicial Greffe trying to establish the currect procedures to be followed with regard to Social Security ( and Employment) Tribunals that take place in the building behind the Ann Summers Shop in Bath Street.

As more and more people become unemployed it is essential that clarity and ease of access for the public must be paramount. There cannot be any secrets in making decisions.

Where confidential matters are discussed and the public has to be excluded then redacted written decisions must be made available so that we can all know that the laws and policies are properly administered.

SSTAG is not satisfied with the answers so far received and we have spoken with the Assistant Minister at Social Security - Deputy Pinel - about this and will continue to press for fuller disclosure of information - as we will with regard to ALL decisions made at the La Motte HQ of the Social Services Deprtment.

As always we invite anybody with experiences - good or bad-  to contact us so that we can build up a full picture and we also invite any States Members to make contact with us too. We are trying to solve problems - not create them.

The emails below start with the most recent reply  a few days ago from the Judicial Greffe (which deals with such matters for the Social Security Department and the Tribunal);

Dear Mr Dun

Further to our recent correspondence I have detailed below the procedure followed in the Social Security Tribunal and the Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal for the publication of lists of hearings, sittings in public and the publication of decisions.  The procedure is the same for both Tribunals as although they are governed by separate Orders the Orders themselves are very similar.  I have hyperlinked these to enable you to refer to them as you go through this email

I have discussed this matter with and copied this email to the Depuy Judicial Greffier.

The relevant Orders for each Tribunal do not specify that the details of hearings should be published prior to the hearing taking place, only that the hearings are in public.  Up until the present time these details have not been published anywhere.  However, this is not to say that we will are not willing to publish the lists, only that it has not previously been done and with that in mind we are in the process of developing the Court Service website, part of which will be a section for the Tribunals Service, once this is up and running the lists of hearings will be available on this site. 

Looking now at the question of hearings in public or private both Part 7 of the  Income Support (General Provisions)(Jersey) Order 2008, which covers the Income Support Medical Appeal Tribunal, and Part 4 of the Social Security (Determination of Claims and Questions)(Jersey) Order 1974 which covers the Social Security Tribunal state that :

“The Tribunal shall sit in public unless the Tribunal considers it necessary to sit in private”

The presumption is that the hearing is in public and the decision on whether or not it is necessary for a hearing to be in private is in the hands of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal’s approach to applications for sitting in private are as follows:-

The Registrar will remind the appellant when they arrive that the hearing is in public.  If the appellant is concerned about this the Registrar will inform them that  they can, if they wish make an application to the Tribunal immediately prior to the start of proceedings for the matter to be heard in private.

If there is likely to be an application the Registrar will pass this information to the Tribunal panel in advance of the hearing in order that the panel are aware that such an application will or may be made. 

The Tribunal will convene the Chairman will ask if there are any applications to be made prior to the hearing commencing.  The application will be heard in open forum and the panel will decide on the basis of the reasons put before them by the applicant and the nature of the substantive matter whether or not to grant the application. Once the decision and if it is for a private hearing any members of the public and /or press present will be asked to leave the Tribunal room.

On the question of the publication of decisions; the relevant Orders for both Tribunals state that the decision of the majority of members of the Tribunal shall be the decision of the Tribunal and that a written record of the decision signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman,  which includes the names of the panel members, the reasons for the decision and records any dissenting opinion, shall be distributed by the Registrar to the parties as soon as is practicable after the hearing has taken place.  There is no statutory requirement for these decisions to be published and at the moment there are no plans to do so. 

If a case has been taken to the Royal Court on appeal on a point of law then the reasoned judgment for that appeal will be published on the Jersey Law website,

Finally the relevant Orders for each Tribunal contain the provision that each Tribunal may regulate its own procedure.  The information I have detailed above is the procedure followed by these Tribunals where public hearings and the publication of decisions and reasons are concerned.  These are not “make it up as we go along” procedures and they will be published on the website once it is up and running.

I hope I have answered your queries but if you require any further information please email me.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Judicial Greffier 

From: Mike Dun Sent: 09 January 2013 10:00
Subject: Re: re Social Security Tribunals

Dear Mrs .......Thanks for the preliminary further information but I think we are heading fior a very dark hole of secrecy here.

For the record it must be stated that such tribunals are outside the heirarchy of the courts system and have been subject to review and reform in other places such as the UK (notably following Legatt).

Even UK Family Court rules have been relaxed to allow public access and reporting in some cases.

Just because a matter involves children is not automatically a reason for hearings to be in secret. Access to decisions etc are also in this category.

Of course, we are not in the UK and I would want to receive clarification based upon rules, regulation or policies that specifically apply in and have been sanctioned within Jersey.

I do not expect to receive the usual "make it up as we go along" approach just borrowing bits of practice that seem to suit the moment.

I can only repeat that these tribunals should take place in public for very good reasons which have already been outlined.

I note that you do not anticipate responding fully before the next hearing but I can confirm my intention of attending tomorrow's hearing and if necessary will raise the matter directly with the tribunal's chairperson.

Regards

Mike Dun

----- Original Message -----

To: 'Mike Dun'

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 9:13 AM

Subject: RE: re Social Security Tribunals

Dear Mr Dun

I have been informed by the Registrar that tomorrow’s hearing involves a minor – I am checking with the Chairman of the Tribunal but I expect this hearing to be held in private – it is Court policy that all hearings involving children are held in private and there is no reason for Tribunals to be different.

I will confirm by email as soon as I have a reply from the Chairman.  I will also be sending a detailed reply to your previous email in the next 48 hours.

Yours sincerely

Assistant Judicial Greffier 

From: Mike Dun Sent: 08 January 2013 23:57
Subject: re Social Security Tribunals

Further to my previous I write to confirm that I plan to attend as a member of the public for the scheduled hearing re ...... on Thursday 10 January.

I hope that this might proceed as planned in public.

Regards

Mike Dun 

PS
We have continued to try to attend as many Employment Tribunal Hearings as possible but several have been cancelled at very short notice and one very interesting one was put on without any notice at all. This hearing was duly adjourned and we have asked to be advised when it will resume because it raised some very important issues reaching way beyond Employment law and procedure.

Another hearing put on at short notice took place on Thursday so far as is known but details are awaited.
We called into the JET office (upstairs behind the Ann Summers shop) on Friday to ask if the list of hearings for February was available.
The answer was somewhat vague but it now transpires that a notice will be stuck on the JET door at midday on a Friday so that the general public might discover what hearings are due!

Could we have a copy - NO! we must look at the notice stuck on the door.
So we checked and there was a tiny notice advising of just two scheduled Employment hearings for the first week of February (Monday and Thursday). This is the new system until JET can update its IT system!
So there you are general public - if you want to know what is going on - then get yourself outside the JET after midday on a Friday...

The notice offers the tel number 630291 to 'phone for updates. Try it and let us know how you get on.

Of course, there is nothing at all about Social Security hearings, which according to the rules are also supposed to take place in public - although we have been thrown out of both those that we attempted to attend so far.
None are scheduled for February apparently - so all those thousands of people claiming Income Support etc at the Social Security Departnent must be content with their decisions. This is contrary to what we hear on the street so we find this puzzling...

PPS
We also hear that the Hospital is now demanding the most extraordinary information from seriously ill  and aged patients  before they will treat them!!!
If you have received one of the latest letters demanding that you prove whether you have paid your SS contributions, income tax etc and have housing quals or to produce copies of your bank statements - do let us know. We should very much like to publish a  suitably redacted copy on this SSTAG blog site...

More information - who needs to know....?

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?