STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 26th NOVEMBER 2025

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 3

1. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.84/2025) - resumption .................................................................... 3

1.1   Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs): .................................................................................... 3 Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General: .......................................................... 4

1. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : ................................................ 5
2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :.................................................................. 5

2. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct – States of Jersey Police Force) Regulations 202- (P.82/2025) .............................................................................. 7

1. Deputy M.R. Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs): . 7

1. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 9
2. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .............................................. 10
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 10
4. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 10

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 12

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 12
2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 13
   3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 15

3. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - Honorary Police) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.83/2025) - as amended (P.83/2025 Amd.) .............................................. 16

1. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs): ................................................................................... 17

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 18
2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 18
3. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 18
4. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 18

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 20
3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :................................................................. 22

4. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Commencement Act 202- (P.84/2025) .............................................................................................. 24

4.1   Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs): ................................................................................... 24

5. Draft Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits) (Jersey) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 202- (P.87/2025) ............................................................................ 26

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment): .... 26

1. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 26
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 28
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 30
4. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South : .................................................... 30
5. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 31
6. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 31
7. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 32
8. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :............................... 32
9. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : .......................................... 33

2. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 36
3. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 36

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 37
2. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 37
3. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 38

6. Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Commencement No. 2 Act 202- (P.88/2025) .................................................................................. 41

6.1   Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter (The Minister for Children and Families): ............ 41

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 43
2. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 44
3. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 44

7. Draft Children and Civil Status (Parental Responsibility) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.105/2025) ............................................................ 46

7.1   Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter (The Minister for Children and Families): ............ 46

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 47
2. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 47
3. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 47
4. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 49
5. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 50

8. Breaches of the Code of Conduct: review of Standing Orders (P.101/2025) - as amended (P.101/2025 Amd.) .............................................................. 52

8.1   Deputy R.S. Kovacs : ...................................................................... 52

1. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 53
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North : .................................................. 54
3. Deputy R.S. Kovacs : ...................................................................... 54

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.................... 56

9. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): 56

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 56

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter :

I was wondering if I might ask just to make a change to the order. I am presenting P.88 and I would like, if possible, to then present P.105, which is currently the last item of the sitting, if I could do that immediately afterwards simply because I would like to attend to some Parish matters, if possible, this afternoon. I am on a flight to the U.K. (United Kingdom) tomorrow and then to Australia, so I have to fit quite a bit in.

The Bailiff :

So P.88 is the Draft Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Commencement Act. The Connétable of St. Peter :

That is right.

The Bailiff :

Which, in theory, should be short. Then the next matter you wish to raise is P.105, the Draft Children and Civil Status (Parent Responsibility) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations. Those are the regulations you lodged late.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

Yes.

The Bailiff :

You want them dealt with sequentially? The Connétable of St. Peter :

If I could.

The Bailiff :

Yes. Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded]  Does anyone wish to speak on the proposition? Are Members content to proceed as suggested by the Connétable ? Thank you.

1. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.84/2025) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We now return to the Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct) Amendment Regulations, P.81, which we had reached in Third Reading. In my view, under Standing Order 103(2)(c) in the circumstances Members may speak again in Third Reading. I think only 2 Members did speak in Third Reading, the rest were questions to the Solicitor General. I call upon the Minister in Third Reading.

1.1   Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs):

At this stage it would be appropriate for me to answer the question which was asked of me yesterday. The question that Deputy Bailhache asked was concerning the limitation of liability being provided for in new Regulation 2A(2) being amended into the States of Jersey Police Force (Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer) (Jersey) Regulations 2017. While our policing legislation needs to be effective for Jersey, we share a policing culture with the U.K. and have similar expectations of our police. While we develop our own structures, when required in many areas this new complaints legislation defaults to providing something comparable to the U.K. structure. In the U.K., by virtue of paragraph

15(1) of schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, police and crime commissioners and their staff have protection from liability across all areas of their work, including any disciplinary actions they take in respect of a chief constable or assistant chief constable. So in our new legislation, this liability protection is provided to our Police Complaints Commission by paragraph 6 of schedule 1 of the 2022 law, and is also due to other parties who might be taking actions akin to those of the U.K. commissioners. As the panel, considering the behaviour of the chief officer or deputy chief officer, provided for new Regulation 2A will have such a function, they are similarly protected from liability. Just as the Commission staff are protected in the U.K., so are the advisers to the panel in Jersey, including any human resources professionals who are mentioned in the 2017 regulations. The intention is simply to provide a comparable environment. However, after detailed review, I have been advised that the U.K. legislation does not extend liability limitation to legal representatives in the same way that the amended 2017 regulations will do here. If that is the source of the Deputy 's concern, then I would be happy to agree to make an amendment to those regulations to remove such limitation at the earliest opportunity, which is a fairly minor matter and so hopefully could be at least, if not by the end of the year, pretty much within the first month of 2026, if this legislation can move forward now without being delayed. I do apologise to the Deputy for not being able to answer his question yesterday and to the Assembly. These regulations are one of an extremely complex set of legislation which has been developed over the past 5 years. I am advised from a review of the files that the decision to include a limited liability was taken before August 2020 and has remained in these regulations ever since. This matter has never been raised before, either in connection with these amendments or the earlier Police Complaints Law in the Assembly, at Scrutiny or indeed at the recent Members' briefings. I do hope that Members will understand why I was not prepared for this answer yesterday.

The Bailiff :

Minister, just to understand your undertaking to the Assembly, just so I understand it properly, it is in relation to Regulation 5 of these regulations, the new Regulation 2A or Article 2A(1)(c), is it? It is simply that you are proposing to lodge an amendment which has the effect of removing the words: "a person who is advising, or has advised, a tribunal under Regulation 2(5)"; is that right?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. Does any Member wish to speak on this matter in Third Reading? Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

Sir, could we raise the défaut on Deputy Farnham , please?

The Bailiff :

Are Members content to raise the défaut on Deputy Farnham ? The défaut is raised. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

It was my understanding that the Solicitor General had been asked questions in relation to the effectiveness or actually need for this wording, so I would be grateful if he could advise.

Mr. M. Jowitt., H.M. Solicitor General:

I think the topic has now become academic in light of the Minister's undertaking to remove lawyers from the indemnity.

[9:45]

I cannot see it will assist the debate in Third Reading for me to offer an entirely academic view on how, if at all, this indemnity would work in respect of a lawyer advising the panel who found himself being sued by a chief officer or deputy chief officer. I think we have moved beyond that now.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak in Third Reading on this matter?

1. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

May I just express my thanks to the Minister for her comprehensive answer to my question and to say that I am entirely content with the way in which she proposes to deal with the problem.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak in Third Reading? I call upon the Minister to reply.

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

I thank the Deputy and Members for their support yesterday. It was a challenging piece of question to answer and we have managed to get there. I ask for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. I ask the Greffier to open the voting.

Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South :

Sorry, Sir, can I ask a quick question on this? I am trying to .. The Bailiff :

No, you cannot.

Deputy D.J. Warr :

I cannot.

The Bailiff :

If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the regulations have been adopted unanimously in Third Reading:

2. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct – States of Jersey Police Force) Regulations 202- (P.82/2025)

The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - States of Jersey Police Force) Regulations lodged by the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs. The main respondent is the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, and I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - States of Jersey Police Force) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Articles 8(1A), 9(6), 19(2), (3) and (4), 20(10) and 22 of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law 2022.

1. Deputy M.R. Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs):

These regulations will provide a highly anticipated update to our current provisions for dealing with police complaints. It is worth just revisiting some of the background to this legislation. At the heart of any effective police disciplinary system lie these essential purposes. First, to maintain public confidence in our police service and to protect its reputation. Second, to uphold the highest standards of conduct and deter any form of misconduct. Third, to ensure the safety and protection of the public we serve. On 30th March 2022, we took a significant step forward by adopting the Police Complaints and Conduct (Jersey) Law 2022, which I will refer as "the 2022 law". This legislation marks a comprehensive and modern update to our approach to police complaints. Once enacted, this framework will bring Jersey up to date with modern expectations and best practices. The 2022 law provides a clear and structured foundation for how complaints should be managed. It also brings us closer in line with similar legislation across the British Isles, which is particularly important when we consider the potential need for mutual aid where resources and services may be shared across jurisdictions. The 2022 law sets out that dissatisfaction with the police falls into 3 areas: complaints about an officer's actions, conduct matters where misconduct or criminal behaviour is suspected, and the most serious cases involving a death or serious injury linked to police contact. A complaint is a written expression of dissatisfaction about a police officer's actions submitted by those affected on all their representatives. It must relate to harm or risk caused but cannot challenge a Centenier's charging decision. A conduct matter arises when there is any sign of criminal behaviour or misconduct. If that threshold is not met, the issue can be addressed informally through agreed resolution, reflective practice review or performance procedures. I will outline these in greater detail later. Serious injury or death refers to any case where a detained person dies or is seriously injured and there is an indication that police contact may have been a contributory factor. A notable feature of the 2022 law is the inclusion of designated persons. These are individuals who may be public employees assigned to perform police functions or employees of contractors designated under the Police Force (Jersey) Law 2012. All of these arrangements will be overseen by the Jersey Police Complaints Commission, "the Commission", which will replace the existing Jersey Police Complaints Authority while retaining the same membership. The regulations will ensure that procedural and process matters will be brought together in a single coherent framework. The focus of these reforms is on resolving matters easily, reasonably and proportionately. We are shifting the emphasis towards learning and development rather than punishment alone. This approach recognises that the vast majority of officers serve with honour and dedication, and that when issues arise they should be addressed in a way that offers support and education. Where disciplinary proceedings are necessary, they will be conducted in accordance with the highest standard: reasonably, transparently, objectively and fairly. These principles are not just words, they are the foundation of a just and effective system. Importantly, the disciplinary procedures now align with best practices found in

other employment fields, while still recognising the unique and vital role that police officers play in our society. This balance ensures that officers are treated fairly while also maintaining the high standards the public rightly expects. Accountability will go beyond active service. It will also apply to former police officers and former designated persons, providing that the issue was raised before or within 12 months of their departure. It is important to note that the chief officer and deputy chief officer are governed by separate legislation, reflecting the unique nature of their leadership roles. Our objective is to ensure that complaint handling standards are consistently applied. This is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency, it is a matter of public trust. I will talk about the initial steps to be taken once a complaint is received. Written complaints about police officers go to the chief officer who records the complaint, secures any evidence and informs the deputy chief officer and the Commission. Copies are shared with both the complainant and the officer unless this would compromise an investigation or the public interest, and these decisions are reviewed regularly. If a criminal offence is suspected, the D.C.O. (deputy chief officer) must refer the case to the Solicitor General. The D.C.O. may decide not to pursue a complaint or to adjust how it is handled. Where it is clearly without merit, whether that is because it is unfounded, repetitive, anonymous, vexatious, or impractical to investigate, this can only be done with the Commission's agreement. This is particularly relevant where a complaint is over 12 months old and appears to lack any justification. In such incidences, the complainant will be informed of the decision and the reasons behind it, unless it is not practical to do so. These safeguards help ensure that the system remains fair and focused on matters that can be properly and meaningfully addressed. Where a complaint involves an unknown officer or designated person, the standard procedures such as notifying the person complained about or their opportunity to make a representation will not obviously apply. However, if the individual is later identified, the investigation may resume. The D.C.O. also has the authority to suspend serving officers or designated persons, excluding former officers, if they are charged, reported for misconduct or subject of a complaint. We are also introducing a more effective approach to resolving complaints where formal investigation or criminal proceedings are not required. The previous informal resolution process is now replaced by the agreed resolution of complaints. In these circumstances, where outcomes such as dismissal, resignation or formal warnings are not anticipated, a proportionate and structured process will be undertaken. This process will be overseen by an inspector or above, appointed by the D.C.O. Once concluded, the outcome will be formally recorded and submitted to the D.C.O. for review and assurance. The complainant retains the right to request a review by the Commission if they are not happy with the outcome of the agreed resolution. Where the agreed resolution procedure is not appropriate, the D.C.O. will assess whether the matter amounts to misconduct, gross misconduct, or neither. If the matter is not deemed to be misconduct or gross misconduct, the D.C.O. must decide whether it reflects a need for improved practice, a performance concern, or requires no further action. When deciding whether to refer a practice requiring improvement, the officer's line manager should be engaged in the process unless that would be prejudicial to the consultation. All relevant parties must be informed of the assessment outcome in writing at the earliest reasonable opportunity. This written notification must also outline the complainant's right to request a review of that decision by the Commission. If the D.C.O. decides that the behaviour is not suitable for agreed resolution and the complaint, if proved, would be misconduct or gross misconduct, they will appoint a suitable investigator approved by the Commission. That investigator can be an experienced police officer or civilian, providing they are not involved with the individual concerned or the case. The D.C.O. will then provide the person complained about, with a written notice detailing the relevant facts, outlining the disciplinary procedures and identifying available options for obtaining legal advice. Where the conduct, if proven, would constitute misconduct or gross misconduct, a misconduct investigation must follow. Accountability and transparency are the cornerstones of public trust in our police force. That is why we have clear expectations for the timely handling of disciplinary investigations. Officers have 10 working days to submit statements once an investigation begins. If an investigation is not concluded within the prescribed period, which is initially 12 months, and every 6 months thereafter, the D.C.O.

must report to the Commission, outlining the progress made, the reasons for the delay, and the steps being taken to bring the matter to a conclusion. When a misconduct investigation report is received the D.C.O. must promptly decide whether a police officer has a case to answer and refer it for the appropriate disciplinary process. No action can proceed until the Commission submits its statement of approval, and all relevant parties must be notified of the findings and next steps. If no case is found the matter may be closed or redirected to performance review, except where the officer is no longer working. Let me now turn to how we address that misconduct within the service. It is important to note that the Commission must supervise misconduct investigations and any death or serious injury matters. The Commission must also be notified about a number of criminal conduct matters, which are outlined later in Regulation 58. Cases of misconduct will be referred to a disciplinary meeting, chaired by a chief inspector or another suitably qualified individual appointed by the D.C.O. Outcomes at this stage may include either a written warning or a final written warning. However, where an individual has already received a final warning or been demoted within the previous 18 months, the matter must be escalated to a disciplinary hearing. In each case of gross misconduct a formal disciplinary hearing must take place. These hearings are overseen by a panel of 3 appointed by the Deputy Chief Officer to ensure fairness and independence. The panel has a range of sanctions at its disposal from demotion in rank to dismissal with or without notice, which is a compulsory termination of service, or a requirement to resign, which allows an officer to step down voluntarily though under clear direction. In some circumstances, where appropriate, the outcome may instead be a written or final written warning.

[10:00]

This structured approach ensures that disciplinary matters are handled fairly, proportionately and with the seriousness they deserve. The Commission plays a vital oversight role in our system. It may provide written input or attend hearings when invited, and the appointed investigator or qualified representative must be available to answer any potential questions commissioners have. Before any case is closed the Commission must be satisfied with both the process and the outcome. Let me now briefly address the appeals process and the use of reflective practice review. Appeals must be submitted to the Commission within 28 days, with extensions permitted. An appeal panel, comprising a Royal Court judge and 2 jurats would be convened, co-ordinated by the Judicial Greffe. I spoke earlier about reflective practice. This can be used for developmental purposes to learn from mistakes, where under the old law disciplinary action would have taken place. A reviewer, who would typically be a line manager or senior officer, will engage the officer in a structured process to identify lessons and improvements. A report is then shared with the D.C.O. and monitored over 12 months. If the officer does not engage, the matter will be referred to the D.C.O. for review. These measures ensure fairness, accountability, and continuous professional development within the service. This piece of legislation is not just about process, it is about the trust, it is about ensuring that our police service remains accountable, transparent, and worthy of confidence placed in it by the people of Jersey. These regulations present a significant step forward in our commitment to transparency, accountability, and fairness in policing across our jurisdiction. I propose the principles.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the principles?

1. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

In the course of a review I was conducting into the implementation of the States Assembly to bring forward a Public Services ombudsman I did have the opportunity to speak with the chair of the Jersey Police Complaints Commission about the way in which complaints are conducted, and I was very impressed by the work that the volunteers on the Commission have done and also the amount of thought that has gone into what needed to be improved in the complaints handling process. Indeed, a lot of thought given in terms of the standards that are to be applied in handling complaints, the importance of having an appropriately qualified investigator, giving of reasons, and maintaining anonymity of the identity of the complainant, and all for good reasons. I am very pleased to see that progress has been made in this area and give my full support to these regulations.

2. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

The Minister has given a very comprehensive explanation of these regulations and I understand entirely the need for accountability of police officers, ensuring that processes are proper and comprehensive, and so on. I do have some reservations, I suppose, about the copying and pasting of United Kingdom regulations and incorporating them into our law in Jersey for one reason, and that is that we are a very small place. The States of Jersey Police consists of not more than 200 officers whereas the police forces in the United Kingdom have thousands of officers. When one looks at the detail of the processes which we are importing into Jersey, I do have some concerns as to whether we can cope with it. We do not want police officers to spend their entire time investigating each other on complaints which may or may not be serious. They should be engaged in investigating what I might call "proper crime". However, I am not going to oppose these regulations because I do understand - as the Minister has explained - that there are advantages in having regulations which are consonant with the regulations which apply to other police forces in the British Isles. But I do express, as I say, some reservations about the importation of these extremely comprehensive rules.

3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

It has just occurred to me that this does seem to be far more involved than the previous law and regulations, and I do wonder whether consideration has been given to the impact on the officers involved. Because I know that when officers are under investigation and it does take a certain amount of time - quite a considerable time - then it can have a detrimental impact on their mental health and well-being. I do wonder what considerations have been given to the far more detailed process which we will probably be agreeing today.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on the principles? Minister.

4. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

I would agree 110 per cent with Deputy Scott 's view in relation to the role of what is going to hopefully be the Police Commission. I fully hear what both the Constable of St. Lawrence and Deputy Bailhache say. However, having spent a significant time in the rank of inspector and chief inspector, and having done the role of the inspector in the Complaints and Discipline Department for 12 months myself, even though this looks more complex I would say that the introduction of the element of the performance review I think is a good one. We had an informal resolution before which basically was a case of the complainant was happy with an informal resolution, the officer was told they were unhappy with this, you had no recourse and there was no development process put in place. So from my perspective the element of having somebody monitored for the period of 12 to 18 months I think is a good thing. I think the division of what was a number of different offences, lots of different pieces to the legislation, I think now that we have got 3 distinct areas people will be dealt with at a lower level in relation to their performance, which would have ended up potentially in the realms of a full hearing. I do understand that people do not like us bringing in law from the U.K., however, what people will see is that on a number of occasions we utilise U.K. forces to investigate on our behalf, particularly that would occur in relation to serious injury or deaths, and so I think from that element is always a benefit for some of the legislation to fit in side by side. As I said, having worked with the previous legislation I am quite confident that this is workable.

The Bailiff :

Is the appel called for?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted unanimously:

Deputy Catherine Curtis , does your panel wish to scrutinise this matter?

Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central (Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Minister, do you wish to propose the regulations in Second Reading?

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Yes, please, Sir, and I would like to propose them en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Thank you. Are the regulations seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations in Second Reading?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

I just want to apologise to the Minister. I meant to ask this the other day but I know she was rather busy yesterday after the hearing sorting out the question that was there. It is just Regulation 5 on suspension. Just wearing a previous role as a representative and a case worker for trade unions, whenever there is a suspension it is a really difficult time. I just want to confirm, in part (8) it says: "If a police officer is suspended or a designated person's designation is suspended, they are not entitled to be paid an allowance." It does detail afterwards some specific examples when pay will not be there, and I just wanted to check whether the allowance is their regular pay or it is additional allowances that may go in terms of overtime hours or particular roles they may have or whatever allowances exist in the police force. I always had a problem when people were suspended from their workplace without an outcome without pay, unless there was a specific outcome in mind and there was a specific thing that had been proven in the workplace. So I just wanted to confirm what that was for that regulation.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak in second reading? Minister.

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

My apologies, can I just ask what part, did he say section 5? Deputy R.J. Ward :

Yes, whenever we do regulations I always have trouble with this, because we have the bold number which I think is Regulation 5, the heading is, "Suspension".

The Bailiff :

It is Regulation 5, Minister, subparagraph (8) refers to a police officer who is suspended not being entitled to be paid an allowance while they are suspended. Minister, do you want to respond to Deputy Ward ?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Sorry, Sir, yes, I can respond but I did not know if anybody else was wanting to speak. The Bailiff :

No, we have closed the debate. You are now replying.

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

In relation to police officers there will be a standard pay which all police officers receive, however, they will be elements of pay which police officers will receive for some of the additional things that they do. Off the top of my head you would have - we do not have them anymore - dog handlers would get a certain amount of allowance. There used to be allowances in relation to specialisms, as an example an on-call allowance and all of those sorts of things. So those things would not be paid, it would be that they would be paid the normal basic salary. I call for the appel please.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and the Greffier is asked to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Deputy Moore , you cannot vote because you are still en défaut, so the voting is in fact: 43 votes pour, no votes contre, so the matter has been adopted unanimously in Second Reading.

Minister, do you propose the ..

Male Speaker:

Sir, may I at this point then raise the défaut on Deputy Moore ? The Bailiff :

Yes, are Members content to raise the défaut? The défaut is raised. Minister, do you propose the matter in Third Reading?

3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Yes, please, Sir.

[10:15]

The Bailiff :

Is the matter seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the regulations as adopted in Second Reading, in Third Reading? Those in favour, kindly show. The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The regulations have been adopted unanimously in Third Reading:

3. Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - Honorary Police) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.83/2025) - as amended (P.83/2025 Amd.)

The Bailiff :

The next item is the Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - Honorary Police) Regulations, lodged by the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs. The main respondent is the chair of the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Police (Complaints and Conduct - Honorary Police) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these Regulations under Article 8(1A), 9(6), 19(2), (3) and (4), 20(10) and 22 of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) (Jersey) Law 2022.

1. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier North (The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs):

In my previous speech I outlined the background and rationale underpinning the police complaints legislation as it applies to the States of Jersey Police. Rather than revisit that in full I will focus on the key distinctions within the Honorary Police complaints legislation, highlighting only where it differs from the proposed framework for the States of Jersey Police. You will recall that the States of Jersey Police, once the police officer has received the complaint, it is largely the D.C.O. who leads the complaints process. For the Honorary Police these roles will primarily be allocated to the A.G. (Attorney General) and the constable respectively. For example, in relation to complaints against unknown officers or where an officer needs to be suspended, it is the A.G. who would deal with it. If a criminal offence is suspected the A.G. must refer the case to the S.G. (Solicitor General). Written complaints about Honorary Police officers go to the relevant constable, who records the complaint, secures the evidence, and informs the A.G. and the Jersey Police Complaints Commission. In line with States Police procedures, with the Commission's agreement, the A.G. may decide not to pursue a complaint or to adjust how it is handled where it is clearly without merit. The agreed resolution and the reflective practice review is led by a constable appointed by the A.G., and the outcome is formally recorded and submitted. If that Constable declares an interest in the complaint or it involves the Chef de Police, the A.G. will allocate it to a different constable. If the conduct is assessed as misconduct or gross misconduct the A.G. will request the D.C.O. to appoint an investigator approved by the commission. This may be a senior police officer who is at least the rank of inspector, or a suitably qualified civilian, provided they have no involvement in the case or with the individual concerned. When a misconduct investigation report is received the A.G. must promptly decide whether a police officer has a case to answer, and refer it to the appropriate disciplinary process. The disciplinary process itself is slightly different for the Honorary Police as there is no provision for misconduct hearings, as you would have for a States Police officer, only a misconduct meeting. Cases of similar misconduct will be referred to a disciplinary meeting chaired by either the A.G. or someone suitably qualified and appointed by them. Possible outcomes include a written warning, a final written warning, or if a final written warning is already in place, dismissal with or without notice, or a requirement to resign. However, if the behaviour amounts to gross misconduct these outcomes may be applied even without a prior warning. Where gross misconduct occurs and a final warning is already in place, either dismissal or resignation will be required. This approach ensures that disciplinary action is fair, proportionate and consistent with the seriousness of the conduct. As with the States of Jersey Police, the Commission plays a vital oversight role in the whole process. The appeals process for Honorary officers is the same as that for the States Police. The reflective practice review would typically be led by the constable or Chef de Police, who will engage the officer in a structured process to identify lessons and improvements. A report is then shared with the Attorney General and monitored over 12 months. If the officer does not engage, the matter will be referred to the A.G. for review. As with the States Police complaints process, this legislation is not merely a matter of procedure, it is a matter of trust. It is about safeguarding the principle that our police service must remain accountable, transparent and deserving of the confidence entrusted in it by the people of Jersey. These regulations mark an important step forward in strengthening our commitment to openness, accountability and fairness in policing throughout our jurisdiction. I propose the principles.

The Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I did not want to make a speech, it is just a request. For members of the public who are listening, when Members are speaking I was wondering if they could at least once when using acronyms refer to what the acronym means at the beginning of the speech rather than just going straight in. There was lots of A.G.s and S.G.s but I do not think there was a single explanation for the public of what the A.G. or S.G. is.

Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

Just a point of procedure. Has the amendment been accepted or is it .. The Bailiff :

We come to that on the regulations in Second Reading.

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I stand to support the proposition. I am sure the amendment will be discussed when we get to it but I think. in principle. one of the points which we need to ensure takes place, that any process as a result of the complaint is swift and to the point. We have experienced long, drawn out complaints processes which is really unfair on those involved; both parties in fact. So I would like the Minister to confirm that will be the case. Likewise, I think we have to take care in not being over draconian in our approach because we will put people off joining the Honorary Police. They are all volunteers and the way you deal with volunteers of course is different from dealing with paid employees such as States of Jersey Police. I am sure that will be reflected in the way the Commission approaches complaints, as it is by us Constables when we are faced with a complaint.

2. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

The chairman of the Comité has beaten me to it, but I rise just to endorse the words that he has said about the potential for delay. That is not what we want to see with these new regulations. I am sure most of us who have dealt with complaints against members of our Honorary Police in the past know of long delays, and the detrimental impact that has had; notwithstanding that they are elected to the role, they are volunteers. We just do not want to see that, and that really was the nub of the question that I asked the Minister in the previous debate, because I am aware of the impact that delays have on certainly the Honorary Police members. I was concerned about the impact potentially on States of Jersey Police officers. So I do hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that these changes, particularly involving the newly named commission, will not have a detrimental impact on the well- being of our Honorary Police officers.

3. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade :

Following on from the Constable of St. Lawrence 's concerns, I agree that any complaint can have a detrimental impact on the person who is the subject of the complaint. I note that the Comité has itself proposed an amendment to Regulation 55, which refers to the police friend. This is I think a very important thing to consider about people who are the subject of complaints; if they are being properly investigated it may well be protracted and it can be a very lonely place. So the need to give support to people in these circumstances without judging them is really essential, because it is about the welfare of those people as much as ensuring accountability.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on the principles? Minister.

4. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

From my perspective I genuinely believe that these new regulations will be better than what we have previously. As I have already said, I think previously if it was not an informal resolution it was a full investigation so now with the difference between the 3 different sections that will make a difference. In relation to the element of friends, I think this is exceptionally important that whether it is an

Honorary Police officer or a police officer, that they have somebody that they can make sure that they  keep  contact  with  them  and  ensure  their  welfare  moving  forward.   These  elements  are exceptionally important.

The Bailiff :

Do you ask for the appel? Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Apologies, yes, please, Sir. The Bailiff :

The appel has been asked for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the chance of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted:

Deputy Catherine Curtis , do you wish to scrutinise this matter for your panel?

Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central (Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, Sir. The Bailiff :

Yes, we have seen your report. Thank you very much. Minister, there is an amendment lodged by the Comité des Connétable , do you accept the amendments?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Are Members content to take the regulations as amended? Thank you. Minister, how do you wish to propose the regulations in Second Reading?

2. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

En bloc, please, Sir. The Bailiff :

Are the regulations seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the Regulations in Second Reading? All those in favour of adopting the regulations, kindly show. The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all those Members have had a chance to cast their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I announce that the regulations have been adopted in Second Reading:

The Bailiff :

Minister, do you propose the matter in Third Reading?

3. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat :

Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Are the Regulations seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the regulations as adopted in Second Reading in Third Reading? That concludes the debate in Third Reading. Is the appel called for?

Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat : Yes, please, Sir.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats and the Greffier is asked to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting and I can announce that the regulations have been adopted in Third Reading: