Suspension of JLA ‘oppressive’, says States Complaints Board

Picture: ROB CURRIE. (38399355)

THE Jersey Lifeboat Association’s suspension in 2021 was “excessive, unjust and oppressive”, the States Complaints Board has found after the charity’s former chair raised concerns about the way it was treated.

The charity’s search-and-rescue activities were frozen by Ports of Jersey in December 2021, after its all-weather vessel Sir Max Aitken III hit rocks near Noirmont Point a month earlier while the crew was on its way to help a French yacht.

Although the JLA’s licence to operate was eventually reinstated in May 2023, the suspension came under heavy criticism from its former chair – Ben Shenton – who argued there was “no legal or factual basis” to freeze either of its vessels.

Summarising Mr Shenton’s case, the States Complaint Board noted that Mr Shenton also took issue with – among other things – the Ports of Jersey-commissioned report on the accident by Marico Marine.

“It was alleged that the draft report contained a number of inaccuracies and that it had been circulated to third parties, contrary to guidelines for maritime investigations, data protection legislation and without a right of reply,” it said.

Jersey Lifeboat Association launch press conference. Ben Shenton. Picture: JON GUEGAN. (38399368)

Outlining its findings, the board said it had concerns about the way the document was published and deemed that “the decision of the Harbourmaster to commission the Marico Marine report was without appropriate statutory or delegated authority”.

It also described the suspension as “excessive, unjust and oppressive”.

The board added that: “Given that the suspension was based largely on a report commissioned without lawful authority, the board also finds that the suspension was based wholly or partly on a mistake of law, namely that the harbour authority had the power to investigate the accident rather than the minister.”

However, the board also stated that: “Whilst it is critical of the shortcomings in relation to the aftermath of the incident involving the Sir Max Aitken III, it acknowledges the progress that has been made, despite obvious and inevitable personal antipathies, to ensure the JLA remains a core asset in local search-and-rescue operations.”

Reacting to the findings, Jersey Lifeboat Association chair Simon O’Donoghue said he was “not surprised” and argued that the report “vindicates a lot of the reasons we [the JLA] are here”.

However, he maintained that the charity had a “good working relationship” with Ports.

“It’s all history and, while we can learn from that history – and it’s important that we do – we also have to look to the future,” he continued.

Mr Shenton said the findings report did provide some “closure” as far as the JLA was concerned, but added: “The Ports of Jersey board need to seriously look at the report and take action where necessary.”

In a statement, Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham said: “I would like to thank the States of Jersey Complaints Board for sharing their findings. We will carefully consider all the points and recommendations contained in the report.”

He continued: “I am pleased to note that good progress has been made to ensure that stronger relationships now exist between all of the organisations involved.

“I have personally visited the Jersey Lifeboat Association and have seen how professional, dedicated and skilled the team of managers and volunteers truly are.”

He added: “The findings state that the ‘JLA remains a core asset in local search-and-rescue operations’, and I am confident that Islanders are well protected in our coastal waters as a result.”

However, a Ports of Jersey spokesperson said: “We were made aware of the findings set out in the States Complaints Board Report on Monday evening.

“We, in conjunction with legal advisers and other stakeholders, have identified what we consider to be serious procedural, legal and factual issues with the report. Requests for an opportunity to pause before publication were declined by the chair of the Complaints Board.

“We propose to issue a full and considered response in due course.”

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –