A PROPOSED law change designed to encourage more people to stand as Jurats should not be delayed by broader issues relating to their election procedures, the Bailiff has said.
Timothy Le Cocq was responding to questions raised by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel about the proposal to allow Jurats to serve six-year renewable terms of office, a move intended to encourage younger candidates to join the Royal Court.
At present, all Jurats must serve until the age of 72, irrespective of the age at which they take up their unpaid roles, something which it is feared deters a number of prospective candidates from seeking appointment.
However, the proposed law change has a further benefit for the court because it is also likely to result in a larger pool of retired Jurats still of an age that would allow them to continue to sit in court to supplement the 12 current office holders.
This is particularly valuable when any of them are ill, out of the Island or otherwise prevented from sitting.
Last month the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel wrote to the Bailiff to raise questions about the selection of Jurats, following the lodging by the Chief Minister in December of the proposition to introduce six-year terms.
In his response to panel chairwoman Senator Kristina Moore, Mr Le Cocq has defended the current selection of Jurats by an electoral college comprising Members of the States and members of the Royal Court including the legal profession.
‘It used to be the case that Jurats were elected by the public at large. This resulted, as I understand it, in the politicisation of the office of Jurat. It is important that Jurats, who among other things are judges of fact in the Royal Court and provide the larger number of returning officers for elections to the States Assembly, maintain independence and are not in any way seen as politically influenced,’ he wrote.
Mr Le Cocq argues that a reason why a broader range of people do not offer themselves to serve as Jurats may be a lack of understanding of what the role entails, and he sets out efforts made recently to raise awareness among the wider public. He points out the recent success in achieving a balance of men and women on the bench.
Describing the proposed introduction of six-year terms as ‘a modest but important step’ towards making it easier for people to serve as Jurats, the Bailiff says that he hopes the panel’s ‘understandable inquiry’ will not have the effect of delaying the proposition.
‘Should, after careful consideration, there seem to be any other reason to amend the process for the election and appointment and terms of office of Jurats then I would suggest that this be brought by a further separate amendment to the Law,’ he wrote.
