Implications of A Badly Worded Mistake

This time it is Wendy Kinnard's turn to "do a Guy" (which I think should be the standard shorthand for a Ministerial order that has clearly been made without consultation)

Headlined in Saturday's JEP as allowing unlimited detention, the relevant order:

" The detention of any person for a period in excess of 24 hours must be authorised by an officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above, and the custody record will be endorsed to that effect. The officer conducting that review will endorse the custody record and may authorise further detention up to a further 12 hours from the time of the review"

was changed by Ministerial fiat to:

" The detention of any person for a period in excess of 24 hours must be authorised by an officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above, and the custody record will be endorsed to that effect by that officer. An officer of the rank of Chief Inspector or above may authorise a further period of detention of up to 12 hours from the time of the review and may conduct further reviews and authorise further periods of such detention."

The change causing all the upset is of course not the change in the officer authorising the detention, but the fact that - as stated - it allows potentially unlimited periods of detention, thereby managing to do what Gordon Brown, in his wildest dreams, failed to do with only getting 42 days detention.

Now if preparing a book for publication, it is usually standard procedure to have these proof-read, to make sure there are no obvious slip-ups where the text ends up saying something other than what is meant.

This case apparently was a slip-up, evidently the text was not checked thoroughly enough, and certainly not counterchecked. It beggars belief that such a slip up got through, when highly trained and well paid law draftsmen either didn't get a look in, or didn't have their work checked enough (perhaps it was a rushed job) - and yet - all the other lawyers in the Island community spotted the problems - the apparent rejection of Habeas Corpus - almost as soon as it was in print!

So now, as the JEP reports: "AN order which would have allowed the police to detain suspects indefinitely without charge has been withdrawn. Acting Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur said that the amendment, approved by Home Affairs Minister Wendy Kinnard, was badly worded and it was never intended that it should allow indefinite detention."

Indeed it was badly worded, but didn't anyone stop and raise a red flag at the bad wording as it went on its way? Who was responsible for wording it so badly? Are they in change of framing other laws (heaven help us if they are!)? How can we be sure the same mistakes will not happen again? Will checks and balances be put in place to stop this kind of thing happening again?

In particular, recent events have shown that the power of ministers such as Guy De Faye (over drains) and Wendy Kinnard (over detention) to effectively create damaging legislation without the consensus of the States of Jersey should not be allowed to continue. At least under the old committee system, such decisions would have at least the consensus of more than one individual. Now it appears than one individual can make orders without recourse to such consensus, and the fact that they have to be rescinded simply makes the system look amateur and foolish.