Friday 21 November 2014

Jersey's Elections (5) -------No Honour, Integrity or Confidence, What's New?

Following a complaint lodged by Nick Le Cornu and Gino Rosoli the losing candidates in the recent election for Deputies in St Helier Number 1 District, the Royal Court has rejected their complaint relating to an error in the Nomination Paper submitted by Scott Wickenden (above).

The Royal Court may well be of the belief that the submission of an invalid Nomination Paper was technical and inadvertent therefore not a matter of substance.  But is that acceptable, are Elections not supposed to be serious matters therefore requiring the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

The Public is entitled to expect States Members to be competent, honest and honourable. It should also expect its Courts to act in a fair and consistent way and deliver justice. Perhaps it’s because I am old fashioned and principled that I am not enamoured by the Court’s decision or share the relief experienced by Scott Wickenden when he says he just wants to get on with his job. The following paragraphs will explain my reasons.

Nomination Papers are vital documents and it is the responsibility of candidates to ensure that their signatories are not only on the electoral role but live in the relevant constituency. 

Having stood for election several times I know how important the Nomination Paper is and always ensured that my signatories were valid. Mr Wickenden failed this simple task. The other five candidates did not.

I understand that Mr Wickenden submitted his Nomination Paper to St Helier Parish Hall before the Nomination Meeting. The Nomination Paper contained the name of a woman who lived outside Number 1 District thereby rendering the document invalid. However the Officer at the Town Hall failed to spot the error. 

Given that Mr Wickenden would have been canvassing for 3 weeks before the day of the election It is hard to understand how he did not discover that one of his signatories lived in a different district or those close to him did not discover that fact. This leads one to ask whether he did know but chose not to disclose the information.

Most signatories vote for their nominee. However it is evident that the woman could not vote for Mr Wickenden at the Town Hall because as she had discovered that she was registered to vote in Number 2 District she voted at the Springfield Polling Station and therefore could not vote for him. It seems inconceivable that there was no communication between the pair of them before or after the election. Unfortunately the Royal Court was not sufficiently interested to allow the complainants to call the woman to give evidence so we shall never know the truth.

It is also hard to accept that at no time during the post election celebrations that the mistake did not come to light or was not discussed.  However even if one is prepared to believe that Mr Wickenden knew absolutely nothing of his mistake until it was revealed the day after the election, it is evident that he was prepared to sit tight in anticipation that the matter would disappear which questions his honesty and integrity.

Elections are ordered by the Royal Court which appoints its Jurats as Returning Officers. A Jurat was appointed to oversee the above election yet it appears there is no provision for the Court or its appointees to play any role in addressing invalid Nomination Papers. This is left to the unsuccessful candidates who will be perceived to be bad losers by pursuing the matter. This was certainly the case with Nick Le Cornu. I am not defending his inappropriate remarks about a fellow States Member but his mistake should not have been used as a reason for some of the media to attack him but turn a blind eye to a “mistake” by another politician.

The Royal Court should be setting higher bench marks for those who seek high office, yet in this particular case it appears that the bench mark was set well below the norm because of who one of the complainants was. One wonders what action would have followed had Mr Le Cornu won in similar circumstances. 

We are all capable of making mistakes but it is how we handle them that we are judged. Mr Wickenden was seeking the high office of Member of our Parliament whereby his competence, honesty and integrity should be beyond reproach. The Court accepts that he is incompetent but sadly it seemed unconcerned about his honesty and integrity.  

It is not disputed that by receiving more votes than three other candidates Mr Wickenden was elected, however he was elected by an electorate who believed that he was efficient, honest and honourable. With the number of unanswered questions, could that now be said of him?

I saw Mr Wickenden's interview on TV last night and he was clearly relieved, however he offered no apology for his mistake or for the expense incurred by the taxpayers and others in addressing it. Perhaps an honourable member would have apologised for his mistake as soon as it came to light. If  the mistake was known only after the result was announced, which seems highly unlikely, then he should have resigned thus allowing for a re-election.

His action would have been seen as one of humility and honesty which I am sure would have seen his vote increased. As it is unless there are answers to my questions above there will always be question marks about his integrity and honesty.

I note that Mr Wickenden is now a member of the Public Accounts Committee chaired by Deputy Andrew Lewis. Given the concerns raised in my previous blog concerning Deputy Lewis it is evident that they are well suited so one can understand why there is so little confidence in our parliamentary and judicial system.

52 comments:

  1. You obviously prefer a vile cyber bully like Nick Le Cornu in the States then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I don't believe Bob does but this is not the point of Bob's post. What Bob has raised are valid points about integrity and honesty. I am sure Bib is like me and he would like to see Jersey law's being applied fairly, irrespective of who you are or which side of the political spectrum you are from.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the support, sadly there are always some readers like the one at 15.42 who like to shoot the messenger.

      Delete
  2. Andrew Lewis is an evidenced liar and it looks like he will be in good company with Deputy Wickenden on PAC.

    Steve Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am afraid that Deputy Lewis will never be allowed to forget his suspension of Graham Power. It looks as though that he and Deputy Wickenden will be like peas in a pod.

      Delete
    2. "Andrew Lewis is an evidenced liar"

      Do you want me to message him with this slander or will you do it direct?

      Delete
    3. You can if you like and can you ask him which of his two statements is correct. The one in which he said he saw the Interim Report or the one in which he said he did not.

      Delete
  3. Regardless of whether or not the court made the right decision, what is undoubtedly true is that this has proven that our laws governing elections are not fit for purpose.

    We have laws that set out criteria for who can stand for election and how they can do so. Yet we have a Royal Court that is willing to not apply the law.

    It makes a mockery out of the whole thing and makes our laws utterly pointless.

    Their justification is "despite the mistake, an election happened and the people chose him, so it would be wrong for us to overturn it".

    Yet, the law also states that you must be a British citizen to stand. What would happen if a non-British citizen stood for election and it was not discovered until after they had won, that they were not British? Would the court disqualify them? They've set a precedent now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sam,
      The problem with precedents is that if it suits, the courts will always find a way to ignore them.

      Delete
    2. It was clear that as soon as the names Clyde Smith & Clapham appeared that Justice would not be done. However it did identify Mr Wickenden as the establishment 'gofor' he clearly is. I wonder what the verdict would have been had it been the Reform candidate

      Delete
    3. He should fit in well his Council of Ministers then

      Delete
    4. Sam I think you miss the point.
      It's not about Scott it is all about the crown officers control and the collusion of the main media hiding facts. This also means the crown at the highest level control policy so that you end up picking up the pieces. This was in your face, I have control and don't you forget it.

      Delete
  4. A valid candidate being deprived of success because a void nomination was allowed to stand is a lot more than a mere technicality. It is the most serious possible consequence. Had a losing candidate been found to have had a void nomination anyway, it could be considered as relatively trivial, especially if they attracted so few votes that it were improbable that the votes they drew away from the highest placed loser were enough to change the outcome, but this was serious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes. You either have the rule of law or you don't.

    I suppose this event is hardly surprising when you consider the small matter of no warrant in the search of Stuart Syvret's house way back.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Its a shame some losers can't move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a shame that you don't move on too. Is your glass always half empty?

      Delete
  7. To add to the mix, perhaps someone could answer the question why, or more importantly how, a completed #2 District ballot paper ended up in the #1 District ballot box at the Town Hall??? Also what happened to the missing postal and pre-poll votes in St. Helier #3 District and why they were only "found" after the declaration had been made??
    Other issues: why were some books of ballot papers allowed to be used when they had been incorrectly stamped - i.e. the stamp had been put on the counterfoil, not across the perforation - leaving the paper itself unauthorised and thus offering an opportunity for forged papers to be added? And the eternal question raised by many voters: why does each ballot paper have a serial number, thus enabling their vote to be traced back to them? Does Jersey have a secret ballot or not??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This case is just another example of the increasing concerns being raised in relation to the way we run our elections and of general accountability.

      Delete
  8. Who payed for Scott Wickenden's lawyer because he doesn't come cheap? I was told Stephen Baker did it for free as a favour to the establishment.

    Julie Sharrock Hanning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt whether Mr Baker who represented Curtis Warren would come cheap for any one let alone Mr Wickenden

      Delete
    2. It would be most interesting to know then who did actually fund Stephen Baker to act on behalf of Scott Wickenden? Did it for free as a favour?? If this is true it says it all really - what is he looking for in return?

      Delete
    3. Mr Wickenden was entitled to seek legal advice which no doubt will have set him back a penny or two but how much he paid Mr Baker is matter for him.

      Delete
    4. A Jersey version of the "cash for questions" scenario perhaps???

      Delete
    5. The state probably paid for Scott

      Delete
  9. This court case was another travesty of justice and if it was NLC who cheated he would have been disqualified no questions asked.

    Sue Young.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spot the sad local troll's posts. First in at 15:42, then another at 17:01.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Its a shame some losers can't move on."

      Is this Troll paranoia?
      I was referring to Gino and Nick not being able to accept defeat.
      The only person who should have raised this was the lady who came in 4th place, but no mention of her in all of this had Scott's seat been disqualified.
      Please stop insulting people with Troll slurs all the time, its ruining discussion.

      Delete
    2. I am sure that Nick and Gino are able to answer for themselves and unlike you will not do so anonymously.

      However you seem to have missed the point. An invalid Nomination Paper was submitted, yet there appears to be no provision in the law to address the issue other than by those who were affected by it.

      Surely you will agree that the Law is defective.

      If there was a re-election do you know if Nick and/or Gino would have stood.

      Delete
    3. Well it should have been picked up by the Parish Hall so the buck stops with them technically so its a cock up. I believe they would have re-stood together with a load of people who lost out in other Districts/Parishes. Can you please get rid of stupid comments about trolls though, it lowers the quality of the debate on this blog. If people are just going to insult or argue with people who comment then I am off.

      Delete
  11. Andrew Lewis has already moved on because this is not only old news but he has a right to keep employee issues confidential forever.
    The only people who ever raise this are a few bloggers and Mike Higgins whenever he gets a chance but the answer always remains the same - "confidential".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure that Mr Lewis has moved on, but he is again a States Member and accountable for his actions. His suspension of Graham Powers left many unanswered questions so don't be surprised if he is asked to answer them.

      Delete
  12. It was evidenced in court that one week before polling day Scott's mother knew of the error. Yet on oath Scott himself did not know until after polling day

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks Gino for your very helpful comment above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If it is the honesty and integrity of Scott Wickenden in question what about the £1,000 loan given to him by his mother for his election campaign he didn't declare on his election expenses?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I delayed posting this comment util I could confirm the content. I have been assured that Mr Wickenham confirmed that claim under cross examination in Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His honesty and integrity aren't looking too good then?

      Delete
    2. Further to the comment above, below is an extract from the Court transcript which is in the public domain;

      “ Deputy Wickenden was informed that his form was in order. He was duly admitted as a candidate without anyone drawing to his attention this error, certainly before the election.”

      Is the Court saying that had Mr Wickenden been aware of the error before the election, it would have come up with a different verdict?

      Delete
  16. Well it is amusing but not surprising that the Court asserts that the acceptance of electoral irregularities is an imperative for defending the right to free elections. I have to think of Tom Lehrer's song… "all their rights protected, until someone we like can be elected…"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bob, you state that the other five candidates had valid nomination papers, not strictly true.

    Gino Risoli's was signed by his wife, she doesn't even live in Jersey let alone St Helier No 1, Gino himself barely lives here, he is only here two days a week!!!

    By getting her on the electoral role when she wasn't entitled to be he has committed a criminal act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The length of time I spend here is much more than two days a week.

      Delete
    2. And we now know the nomination process is meaningless

      Delete
  18. Very Good, must be showing your age to remember Tom Lehrer. A very clever man and I really enjoyed his parodies. His quote above does seem to be appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poisoning pigeons in the park has been doing the rounds again recently. :)

      Delete
  19. The facts of the the case seem clear cut to me. The candidate was not eligible to stand but the court ignored this deciding it did not matter. This clearly shows like Ken Bates confirmed that jersey justice isn't based on political convenience and not truth. I don't know or care about the candidate(s) on way or the other but I find the justification for this Judge made law deeply worrying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think you meant to say Jersey justice is based on political convenience.

    The Court's decision now sets a precedent that invalid Nomination Papers are acceptable, which as you say above is deeply worrying.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 00:08 Thanks for the correction Bob... slip of the finger, and yes very worrying indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For me it was a demonstration of power reminding the public it is the crown in control and don't you forget it.
    I say, dream on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On taking advice, I have removed the Comment relating to the Gino's Nomination Paper, but would be happy to publish if the reader can confirm the contents contained in it.

      Delete
  24. Bob.

    Open Letter to former Home Affairs Minister, Andrew Lewis, PART TWO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks as though Wickenden does not agree with Freedom of Information as he voted with the Council of Ministers and against Deputy Labey's proposition.

      Delete