Barclay brothers question independence of Sark’s Seigneurs and Seneschals

17 May 2013 by

sark aerialR (on the application of) Sir David Barclay and Sir Frederick Barclay v Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, The Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and Her Majesty’s Privy Council [2013] EWHC 1183 (Admin) – read judgment

The power of the ruling body to alter the remuneration of the judicial “Seneschal” was open to arbitrary use and therefore incompatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

The claimants last challenged the independence of Sark’s governing and judicial bodies in successful  judicial review proceedings in 2009. 

This time they sought judicial review of the Order in Council approving the new provisions under the Reform (Sark) (Amendment) (No.2) Law 2010, which had been brought in in response to the 2009 case. The claimants submitted that the provision altering the Seneschal’s terms of office was not compatible with Article 6 in that it resulted in the Seneschal not having the requisite degree of impartiality and independence.  They contended, in essence, that the proposed law contained none of the guarantees to prevent the Seigneur (the hereditary Lord of Sark) appointing anyone he chose to the Appointments Committee as no qualifications for appointment were set out. He could therefore appoint persons who would act on his bidding. The sole check on the power of the Appointments Committee was the requirement for approval by the Lieutenant Governor, but that was no more than a formality.

The application was granted, but only in relation to the manner in which the Seneschal’s remuneration could be altered.

The Court’s Reasoning

The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, giving judgment, observed that the method of judicial appointment was central to establishing and maintaining an institutionally independent judiciary that was also seen to be such.  But highly formal requirements for establishing the committee and appointing the latest Seneschal were unnecessary in such a small community:

 It must be recalled that Sark is a community of 600 people. It is not in our judgment necessary to have all the formal procedures and requirements that would plainly be necessary in the more usual jurisdiction: see for example the type of system set out in the Council of Europe’s Recommendation 2010 (12). Provided that those appointing were in fact qualified to perform the functions of appointing the Seneschal and were independent, then that was sufficient for the appointment that has been made.

The requirement for the Lieutenant Governor’s approval of the appointment was not a mere formality. He was under an express obligation which included a requirement to satisfy himself that the committee concerned was properly qualified and independent, and that the proposed Seneschal had the experience and capacity to satisfy the Article requirements when exercising the jurisdiction of the judge of Sark.

Nor was there any failing in the procedure for removing the Seneschal. Just as in the case of the appointments system for the Seneschal, it had to be borne in mind that setting out a detailed procedure with independent checks and balances may not be required in the small community of Sark. The Seneschal could only be removed in a way compliant with Article 6 because it had to be by direction of the Lieutenant Governor, who was independent of the relevant Legislative and Executive powers. The failure to specify such a process in the legislation could not give rise to any objectively based fears of a risk of the Seneschal being influenced by any improper attempt to remove him. There was equally no objection to the provisions for re-appointment.

There was, however, a problem with the unfettered power of the Chief Please to reduce the Seneschal’s remuneration. An essential component of judicial independence was legal protection against arbitrary reduction in a judge’s pay.  The Seneschal had to be perceived to be under no influence from the majority in the community, and the fact that the Chief Pleas acquired that power by amending the legislation, thereby removing the Lieutenant Governor’s role, was highly significant to the perception of the risk of an arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore the provision enabling the alteration of the Seneschal’s terms of office, including his remuneration, did constitute a violation of Article 6.

A declaration was therefore granted that the committee’s decision recommending approval of the provisions of the 2010 Law was unlawful because in respect of the Seneschal’s remuneration, the Law was incompatible with Article 6. This incompatibility could be cured by an appropriate amendment to the Law to restore to the Lieutenant Governor an effective power over remuneration.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

 

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: