Heavy defeat for move to split the dual role of Bailiff

Wednesday 10th September 2008, 2:55PM BST.

0568062_cropped.jpgAN attempt to end the Bailiff’s dual role as chief judge and ‘speaker’ of the States has been overwhelmingly rejected by the States.

Members yesterday voted by 46 votes to five to reject the proposal by Deputy Shona Pitman (pictured) that would have given the States reform committee up to three years to appoint an elected speaker of the States Chamber.

She argued that the Bailiff’s position as head of the judiciary and president of the legislature was not an effective way to provide checks on power. ‘An independent speaker offers a further positive step down the road to a truly transparent democracy,’ said the Deputy. ‘We can no longer afford to fudge the issue.’

Several Members – including Chief Minister Frank Walker and Health Minister Ben Shenton – said they agreed there should be a debate about the role of the Bailiff, but said it should be left over to a full review by the Members of the next Assembly after the elections. Housing Minister Terry Le Main, Deputies Roy Le Hérissier, Carolyn Labey and others spoke against, saying there was not enough in the three-page report to justify such a profound change.


Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.


  1. 1
    Carolyn

    Submitting a three page report for a motion as sensitive as this is a disgrace! My son submits more for a class project.

    Report abuse

  2. 2
    Joseph

    The late Vernon Tomes pledged to bring the same thing about in 1993 but nothing came of it then.

    Report abuse

  3. 3
    GK

    Of course it would be rejected. This dictatorship of ours is never going to give up abusing their positions. Power corrupts. I bet the 3 pages where detention lines. We will not do anything to rock the boat, We will not do anything to rock the boat,We will not do anything to rock the boat>>>>>>>

    Report abuse

  4. 4
    Joseph

    In time, the role probably will be separated. It is unfortunate that the present application was brought by a political newcomer [no disrespect to Deputy Pitman intended]. It is also true that such an issue should have been far more comprehensively presented than was the case. The rejection of this motion is more to do with the present composition of the house than with the subject matter itself so perhaps Deputy Pitman can take some comfort from that. Perhaps the more relevant issue lies with the fact that the public of this Island has no say as to who is offered a crown appointment. Any new incumbent is presented as a fait accompli by which time any protest would be in vain.

    Report abuse