By Chris McFadyen
READING the headlines, it often occurs to me that our States lack clear thinking, both in the actions they take and also the cost of proposals being put forward. A number of specific examples of this knee-jerk reaction occur to me.
Strangely, the decision to suspend Deputy Ozouf from the States is one of many that come to mind. Those who voted against the decision to exclude him have been named and shamed, quite wrongly in my opinion.
Firstly, we have had two debates on the same prosecution; once when he pleaded guilty and secondly when he was sentenced. But that is not the real point. To suspend his salary was probably correct, although he already had his punishment handed down when he was sentenced. What the States decided to do was to suspend his ability to debate and vote in the States. In doing that, they took away one of the votes exercised by him on behalf of the Parish of St Saviour, so effectively they partly disenfranchised the parishioners of St Saviour. What would have happened if there was a knife-edge vote affecting St Saviour?
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action time and again and to expect a different outcome. In this case, I am thinking of the proposition to have a retrial where there has been a hung jury. If one jury felt that the case had not been proven, will another jury come up with a different verdict?
A jury trial is normally convened for the most serious cases and the costs of prosecution can be considerable, often costing hundreds of thousands of pounds and, in some high-profile cases, running into millions. Cost does not seem to be a consideration. A retrial will not cost those figures but, in high-profile cases a retrial could cost well into the hundreds of thousands, most – if not all – being paid for by us as taxpayers. Those defendants of limited means will have their defence costs paid for by the taxpayer, but those with savings will have to fund their own costs for a second time. Have we reached a stage in our legal system when it is too expensive to plead not guilty – a comment I have made before? Even if you are eventually acquitted, it is very rare for all, if any, of your legal costs to be awarded to you. The cost to us as taxpayers of retrials could be considerable, which could be spent better elsewhere, not to mention a waste of time.
But costs are not the only considerations. An acquittal through a hung jury means that the defendant can put behind them possibly years of uncertainty, massive stress and financial problems, only to be confronted with a rerun of the whole process should a retrial be called.
Then, of course, comes the question of whether a retrial is fair. There will be a lot of public comment following a high-profile trial and those who were not in court will debate the verdict on the bits of information that they have been fed and will have come up with a badly informed opinion. Once the press reports and the gossip have been digested, how many Islanders selected for a second jury would not have some sort of pre-formed opinion?
Thirdly, I am not an expert on PFAS but I understand that our public-water supplies currently have readings within the normally accepted limits, but not the levels set by some countries. There are, however, massive concerns over some private-water supplies in the west of the Island, which have been affected by the leaching of PFAS into the groundwater from the fire-fighting foam used in practice sessions.
PFAS has been linked to some cancers and our government owes a duty to those affected by the PFAS leachate and must do all in their power to assist those households to reduce the levels in their drinking water to safe levels, be it by connecting them to mains water or providing suitable treatment systems or possibly reverse-osmosis units, if cost effective.
It now seems that the States will require the level of PFAS in our public-water supplies to meet a much lower level than at present. The cost has been estimated by Jersey Water to be between £140 million and £210 million – although an alternative figure of £40 million has been mentioned. The former, an eye-watering cost by even our government’s standards.
So, who pays for this? Either Jersey Water who will need to recover the costs through the charges made to consumers, or paid for by the government itself, possibly a combination of both. At the maximum figure quoted, it would represent almost 25% of the estimated cost of our new hospital. In a perfect world where we had unlimited funding, let’s do it and cost be damned. But in our present good – but not unlimited – economic position, let’s take a step back and understand what can be done and what the actual costs will be.
We are a small Island and the last few years have proved that we don’t have unlimited access to funding for capital projects. So, like any good left-of-centre government, the decision is a combination of borrowing now and paying later, a bit like hire-purchase, and also creating further tax revenues to make the repayments without hopefully killing our Golden Geese.
Chris McFadyen was born and educated in Jersey and qualified as a chartered accountant in the 1970s. He set up his own business and subsequently sat on many industry bodies advising on legislation, which still governs practice in the sector today. He has been married to his wife, Caryll, for over 45 years and has two children and two grandchildren.
