Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC223A

royal court

(Samedi Division)

27^th November 2007 

Before     :

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Le Cornu.

 

IN THE MATTER OF AN ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF CONNÉTABLE OF ST HELIER

The Attorney General and Mr Pearce appeared in person.

judgment

the deputy bailiff:

Introduction

1.        On 2nd November 2007 the Royal Court ordered that an election be held in the Parish of St Helier for the office of Connétable, the term of office of the present incumbent having come to an end.  The election was fixed for 9th January 2008.

2.        A nomination meeting was convened for Tuesday 20th November 2007 in accordance with Article 19 of the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the Law").  Article 18 of the Law provides that a person may only be admitted as a candidate for an election if he has been duly proposed and seconded at such a nomination meeting.

3.        The procedure for nomination is set out in Article 20 of the Law and the relevant provision for our purposes is Article 20(4) which provides as follows:-

"The nomination of a candidate for a public election shall be made by the production to a nomination meeting of a document, in such form as the States may prescribe by Regulations, subscribed by a proposer and 9 seconders, all 10 of whom shall be persons entitled under Article 2 (1), (2) or (3) to vote for that candidate in any poll held for the election".

4.        The nomination meeting was chaired by Centenier Scaife as Chef de Police of St Helier.  At the meeting three candidates were nominated, namely Alvin Aaron, Alan Simon Crowcroft and Darius James Pearce ("Mr Pearce").

5.        The nomination form for Mr Pearce bore on its face the requisite signatures of a proposer and 9 seconders.  Amongst the seconders were the signatures of José Velosa, Ross Payne and Peter Le Geyt. 

6.        The following day, it came to the notice of Messrs Velosa, Payne and Le Geyt that their signatures appeared on the nomination document of Mr Pearce.  They then contacted the Parish Hall to say that the nomination document which they had signed was not for Mr Pearce.  They said that they had been approached by one Neil Jones ("Mr Jones") who said that he wished to seek nomination as a candidate in the election and invited them to sign his nomination document, which they had done.

7.        In the light of this information the Attorney General has brought a representation seeking a ruling from this Court on whether Mr Pearce has been duly nominated as a candidate.  The representation was served on Centenier Scaife, Mr Pearce, Mr Jones and Messrs Velosa, Payne and Le Geyt.  They all duly appeared before the Court on 27th November and were heard on oath.  We announced our decision at the conclusion of the hearing but now give our reasons.

Findings of fact

8.        Although there were minor differences on matters of detail, there was no real dispute between all the witnesses who gave evidence before us.  We are satisfied that they were all giving truthful evidence to the best of their ability.  Accordingly, we do not think it necessary to set out what each witness told us; we propose simply to record our findings based upon the evidence which they gave.

9.        Mr Pearce had been thinking of standing for Connétable for some time and had obtained a nomination form for completion.  That form has various blanks in the top half of the page in which details of the person who is to be nominated as candidate are to be inserted.  The bottom half of the form consists of a table with space for 10 signatures.  The top line is for signature by the proposer and the remaining 9 lines are for signature by the seconders.  In each line there is space not only for the signature but also for the electoral list number, electoral district, parish and full name of the person signing.

10.      By Sunday 18th November, (i.e. two days before the nomination meeting) Mr Pearce had obtained the signature of two seconders, a Mr Chatterley and a Mr Hamon.  They had signed on the third and fourth lines of the table, leaving space for signature by a proposer and by another seconder.  However these first two lines had not been completed by that stage.

11.      On account of various domestic concerns, Mr Pearce was having second thoughts about standing.  On the Sunday he met Mr Jones, whom he knew and with whom he had previously discussed the question of standing for Connétable.  Mr Jones said that he wished to run. 

12.      They met again the next day, Monday 19th November, at Mr Jones' office and it was confirmed that Mr Pearce would not proceed but that Mr Jones would stand as a candidate.  Mr Pearce handed over the partially completed nomination form and indicated that he would be happy to propose Mr Jones.  He thereupon signed in the space for the proposer's signature.  He also said that he would be happy to arrange for a seconder to be present at the nomination meeting.  At that stage therefore, there were three signatures on the form, namely Mr Chatterley and Mr Hamon as seconders, with Mr Pearce as proposer.  Mr Chatterley and Mr Hamon had seconded the nomination of Mr Pearce but Mr Pearce was proposing Mr Jones.  The details of the candidate were still blank.

13.      Mr Jones then set about obtaining the necessary seconders to his nomination.  The first was Mr Velosa who is the proprietor of the St James' Wine Bar.  Mr Jones saw him at the wine bar and asked if he would second him (Mr Jones).  Mr Velosa was happy to do so as he knew Mr Jones.  Mr Jones then met a Mr Connelly at the Royal Yacht Hotel who also agreed to second him.  At about 6 p.m. he returned to the St James' Wine Bar where he encountered Mr Payne and Mr Le Geyt.  Both of them were known to him.  He asked each of them in turn whether they would be willing to second him and each agreed to do so and signed the form.  A little while later a Mr Rothon also agreed to second Mr Jones and signed the form.  At the time when all of these people signed the form, the details as to the candidate they were nominating remained blank, but Mr Jones made it clear to them that he was standing for Connétable and was asking them to second his nomination.

14.      Overnight, having discussed the matter with his wife, Mr Jones decided that he would not stand after all.  He met Mr Pearce at his (Mr Jones') office at about midday on Tuesday 20th November, the day of the nomination meeting. He informed Mr Pearce of his decision.  Coincidentally, Mr Pearce had been discussing the matter with his wife overnight and he was now willing to stand after all.  Accordingly they agreed that Mr Pearce would once again go forward as a candidate and the nomination form was handed back to Mr Pearce.  Before he left, Mr Pearce crossed out his name and signature as proposer (clearly he could not propose himself) and Mr Jones signed the bottom line of the table as a seconder.  Thus, when the form was handed back to Mr Pearce, there was no proposer (Mr Pearce's signature having been crossed out) and there was a blank in the line for the first seconder, but all the other spaces for seconders were completed.  The details of the candidate, however, had still not been inserted. 

15.      Mr Pearce attended the nomination meeting at 7 p.m. that evening.  He arranged for a Mr O'Toole to propose him and Mr O'Toole duly signed the nomination form as proposer.  Mr Pearce also arranged for at least three possible additional seconders to be present and one of them, Mr Landor, signed the second line of the form as seconder.  At that stage therefore the form had the requisite ten signatures.  Shortly before the meeting the name of Mr Pearce was inserted in the top half of the form as candidate and it was duly presented to the meeting.  Although it was read out at the meeting, none of Messrs Velosa, Payne or Le Geyt were at the meeting and accordingly they did not hear that they were being presented as seconders of Mr Pearce rather than of Mr Jones.

16.      The next day, much to their surprise, the three of them read that they had apparently seconded the nomination of Mr Pearce.  They accordingly contacted the Parish Hall.

17.      We would summarise our findings as follows:-

(i)        Each of Mr Velosa, Mr Payne and Mr Le Geyt was approached by Mr Jones and asked to second his nomination as a candidate for the office of the Connétable.  At that stage Mr Jones was intending to stand for election whereas Mr Pearce was not.

(ii)       Each of them, when signing the form, intended to second Mr Jones as a candidate, not Mr Pearce.

(iii)      Each of them made clear in evidence that they would not have been willing to second Mr Pearce.  Mr Le Geyt and Mr Payne did not know him at all and Mr Velosa hardly knew him.

(iv)      At the time when each of them signed the nomination form, the identity of the candidate who was being nominated had not been inserted.  The details therefore remained blank.

(v)       Mr Pearce's name as candidate was only inserted a short time before the nomination meeting i.e. well after the form had been signed by Messrs Velosa, Payne and Le Geyt.

(vi)      Although we did not hear evidence from Mr Connolly and Mr Rothon, it seems clear from the evidence of Mr Jones that it was he who approached them to second his nomination and that, when signing the form, they too intended to second Mr Jones, not Mr Pearce.  Again, the identity of the candidate had not been inserted on the form at the time when they signed.

18.      Thus, on any view three of the ten signatories on the nomination form for Mr Pearce did not intend to second him as a candidate and almost certainly a further two were in a similar position.

Decision

19.      Article 18 of the Law makes it clear that a person may only be admitted as a candidate if he is duly proposed and seconded at a nomination meeting.  The requirements as to proposing and seconding a candidate are set out in Article 20(4) which provides that the nomination form must be subscribed by a proposer and 9 seconders.

20.      In our judgment, it is a necessary implication of the statutory provision that the proposer and seconder intend to propose or second (as the case may be) the nomination of the particular candidate whose name appears on the nomination form.  We have found that at least three and probably five of the seconders in this case did not intend to second the nomination of Mr Pearce; on the contrary they intended to second the nomination of Mr Jones.

21.      In these circumstances we are in no doubt that Mr Pearce has not been duly proposed and seconded as required by the Law and his nomination is invalid because of insufficient seconders.  He is not therefore a candidate in this election.  It follows that the only two candidates are Mr Aaron and Mr Crowcroft and the election must proceed on that basis.

Postscript

22.      We could comment on three additional matters. 

23.      First, Mr Pearce submitted during the hearing that it might be thought a little harsh to rule that his nomination was invalid when he had lined up an additional three seconders at the nomination meeting who could easily have signed the nomination form in place of the disputed signatories if only he had known the true position. 

24.      We have to say that we have no sympathy whatsoever with this submission.  It is the responsibility of a candidate to ensure that all the signatures on his nomination form are valid and that the persons signing intend to support that candidate.  If that turns out not to be the case, the candidate has only himself to blame.

25.      Secondly, we have to say that the evidence in this case discloses a lamentable approach to the serious business of nominating a candidate for a public election.  We acquit Mr Jones and Mr Pearce of any deliberate plan to mislead.  We accept that events unfolded against a background of genuine changes of mind by both of them.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr Jones was willing to accept a nomination form signed by two people who had clearly signed it when they thought Mr Pearce was the candidate, not Mr Jones.  More significantly, Mr Pearce was willing to submit a nomination form to the nomination meeting in circumstances where he knew that five of the signatures had been obtained by Mr Jones at a time when Mr Jones was the proposed candidate, not Mr Pearce.  It should therefore have been obvious to Mr Pearce that he could not properly rely upon those signatures.  The form appears to have been passed around as if in a game of 'pass the parcel'.  It was highly unsatisfactory.

26.      Thirdly, we deprecate the fact that persons were asked to sign the nomination form at a time when the details of the candidate whom they were being asked to support had not been inserted on the form.  The Attorney General referred us to two English cases from the 19th century, namely Harmon v Park (1881) 7 QBD 469 and Cox v Davies (1898) 2 QB 202.  We accept that it is an issue to be resolved on another occasion as to whether a nomination form which has been completed in circumstances where the details of the candidate are left blank at the time of the signatures is valid or not.  Nevertheless, as a matter of common sense and good practice, we would strongly disapprove of a practice of inviting signatures on a nomination form when the details of the candidate have not been inserted.  Such a practice clearly provides great scope for misrepresentation or misunderstanding.  We would urge all those who are asked to propose a candidate to insist that the candidate's details are inserted on the nomination form before the proposer signs it.  Furthermore, we would urge all those approached to second a nomination to insist not only that the candidate's details have been inserted on the form but also that the proposer has signed, so that there is a proper proposal which they can second.

Authorities

Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.

Harmon v Park (1881) 7 QBD 469.

Cox v Davies (1898) 2 QB 202.