By Ben Shenton
WELCOME to Jersey, where the motto of public service seems to be: “Transparency is overrated, and accountability is optional.” Our latest States police misconduct investigation – featuring 61 upheld allegations and 12 officers – was handled with all the openness of a secret-society initiation. The public paid over £83,000 for the privilege of being kept entirely in the dark. Bravo.
In most democracies, such a scandal would trigger soul-searching, reform and perhaps a few resignations. In Jersey? It triggers a polite letter to the complainant and a firm “no comment” to the public.
Of course, we must commend the innovative use of reflective practice – a technique that allows officers to ponder their misconduct like monks meditating on moral ambiguity. Nineteen allegations were treated this way. No punishment, no public record, just a quiet moment of introspection. It’s accountability, Jersey-style: introspective, invisible and entirely ineffective.
The case at the heart of this scandal involved a young boy being knocked off his bicycle, with no charges brought. It was only through the relentless determination of the boy’s parents that the systemic failings were investigated at all.
One officer, facing four upheld allegations, simply resigned. Problem solved! In Jersey, resignation is the ultimate escape room – no consequences, no questions, just a clean exit and the reward of a fat pension. It’s like quitting a job at a bakery after burning down the kitchen and still getting a reference and a large payoff.
In the UK, misconduct hearings are public by default. Regulation 39 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 says so. In Jersey, Article 24(1) of the Police (Complaints and Discipline Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2000 ensures hearings are held in private, presumably in a soundproof room with the blinds drawn and the shredder humming. It’s not secrecy – it’s “strategic silence”.
As Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, once said: “The police are the public and the public are the police.” In Jersey, it’s more like: “The police are the police, and the public should mind their own business.”
Culture isn’t just about what’s written in law – it’s about what’s tolerated in practice. And Jersey’s culture of concealment is thriving. Ethics are treated like optional extras, and transparency is a quaint idea best left to other jurisdictions. As Peter Drucker famously put it: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” In Jersey, it’s been feasting on ethics, accountability and public trust for years.
And let’s not forget the pièce de résistance: it took a freedom-of-information request to drag this entire saga into the daylight. Without it, the misconduct investigation would have remained tucked away in the bureaucratic sock drawer, next to the unused ethics handbook.
The Freedom of Information Law is the last line of defence against institutional opacity – a democratic crowbar prying open doors that were never meant to be shut. Any suggestion that its wings should be clipped must be resisted with the ferocity of a watchdog denied its bone. As Justice Louis Brandeis once said: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In Jersey, it seems we’re still fumbling for the light switch and the public are being left in the dark.
If the Island wants to be taken seriously as a modern jurisdiction, it must detox from its culture of secrecy. That means:
- Public misconduct hearings
Public hearings are a cornerstone of democratic accountability. They allow citizens to see that justice is not only done – but is seen to be done. When misconduct hearings are held behind closed doors, it breeds suspicion, erodes trust and creates fertile ground for institutional complacency.
The UK hearings are presumed to be public unless there are compelling reasons to restrict access. This ensures transparency while still protecting sensitive information when necessary.
In Jersey, under a recent law we mandate private hearings, shielding outcomes from scrutiny. This is not just outdated – it’s dangerous and devious. It sends the message that public accountability is negotiable. We must mend the law to allow public hearings by default, with narrowly defined exceptions. Let the public see how standards are enforced.
- Independent oversight
No institution should investigate itself. Independent oversight ensures impartiality, prevents conflicts of interest and strengthens public confidence. It also provides a mechanism for systemic reform – not just individual discipline. In the UK the Independent Office for Police Conduct investigates serious complaints and publishes findings. It operates at an arm’s length from police forces, ensuring credibility.
The Jersey problem is that while Devon and Cornwall Police were brought in to investigate this case, there is no permanent independent body overseeing the States police. This ad hoc approach lacks consistency and institutional memory. We must establish a permanent, independent oversight body with powers to investigate, report and recommend reforms. Independence is not a luxury –it’s a necessity.
- Published findings
Publishing anonymised summaries of misconduct investigations serves multiple purposes: it educates the public, deters future misconduct and demonstrates that the system is working. It also allows for policy learning and cultural change. In the UK the IOPC regularly publishes case summaries, lessons learned and systemic recommendations. This transparency helps build trust and improve policing standards.
In Jersey the public receive no report – only the complainant was informed. This lack of disclosure undermines the very purpose of the investigation. We must require the publication of anonymised summaries for all serious misconduct cases. Transparency is not about naming and shaming – it’s about learning and improving.
- Consequences that stick – even after resignation
Allowing officers to resign mid-investigation and avoid consequences creates a loophole that undermines the entire disciplinary process. It sends a message that accountability is optional and that misconduct can be escaped with a well-timed exit. While resignation loopholes exist in the UK too, reforms are under way to ensure that investigations continue post-resignation and that findings are recorded – even if the officer has left the force.
In this case, four officers resigned or retired before the external investigation began. During the course of the investigation a further two resigned or retired and the one against whom four allegations were upheld faced no consequences. This is not just a loophole – it’s a backdoor to impunity. We must amend disciplinary procedures to allow investigations to continue post-resignation and ensure that findings are recorded and disclosed. Accountability must follow the badge – not just the person wearing it.
Until then, we remain a case study in how not to handle misconduct. A place where the public pays the bill but never sees the receipt. It is now up to Jersey’s politicians – both present and aspiring – to step up, show courage and ensure these reforms are not just discussed, but delivered. The integrity of our institutions depends on it, and the public will no longer accept silence as a substitute for accountability.
Ben Shenton is a senior investment director. He is a former politician, Senator, who held positions such as minister, chair of Public Accounts Committee, and chair of Scrutiny. He also assists a number of local charities on an honorary basis.
