Election Expenses: The AG's Decision

Election Expenses: The AG's Decision

BBC Jersey reported:

Half of the candidates in Jersey's 2018 General Election may have broken expenses rules, the island's attorney general has said. Forty-five of 90 candidates appear to have submitted their returns illegally, according to Robert MacRae QC. His comments came as three candidates accused of failing to declare expenses had the charges against them dropped. It was unfair to single them out when "so many" candidates appeared to have broken the law, Mr MacRae said.

Eighteen sitting politicians are among the 45 candidates from the May 2018 poll thought to have broken election rules. Under the 2014 Public Elections Law, candidates are required to deliver a signed declaration of their expenses within 15 working days of the election. Twenty-eight candidates missed the 7 June deadline, while 17 candidates delivered declarations which "appeared" to break election law for other reasons, Mr MacRae said.

15 Working Days to Submit Expenses?

Is 15 working days enough time? Some candidates may not by that stage have received invoices for work done, and may have to use estimates. Why 15 days? In the UK and other jurisdictions, the timescale is far longer.

In the UK, for example, the timescale is a much more reasonable 35 days. In India, it is 30 days. This is much more sensible. You have to get invoices from people and not just have estimates. I had a bathroom heater fitted in early January, but have yet to receive the bill despite asking for it as soon as possible. I know I will receive it when the electrician does their monthly statements and invoices. That's why 35 days is much more sensible.

Advocate Rose Colley was speaking about late submissions, and suggesting that all the candidates should have been penalised and disqualified. Mention was made that she has stood for election both in the UK and in Jersey, but surprisingly when recounting her UK experience, she did not mention the more generous timescale.

I would recommend that PPC change the time from 15 working days to 35 days. The good news is they are looking at this question. 

A Joke?

Advocate Colley said candidates "should have realised" they were given incorrect forms for their expenses. "It's just made our island a joke, and it's just stupid," she said. "The fact that they could have been disqualified from office, yes, would have caused potentially 18 by-elections, but it would have sent out a message that the law is there and everyone needs to be really aware of the responsibilities.

My son's comment. "And 18 by-elections wouldn't have made the island a joke?"

She needs to get a sense of perspective.

Online Submission

Deputy Russell Labey of PPC said that it was ridiculous in the 21^st century that you had to submit your expenses to the Judicial Greffe by hand (during office hours) rather than by email. He also noted that no receipt was given when you did hand them in.

Advocate Colley said that submission electronically meant you couldn’t be sure that it really was the individual submitting the return and that was why it had to be done by the candidate in person.

I have never heard anything so preposterous. Doesn’t she know that from 2010, Income Tax returns will be completed and submitted online? Parish property schedules can already be checked and signed off online. Online banking allows submission of payments online.

As a defence of the status quo, it simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Of course there is a need to verify identity of someone submitting something online, but with digit id coming in this year, that would easily be possible.

The AG’s Decision

Advocate Colley criticised the decision of the AG as being “in the public interest” and said he should have consulted more widely. I would be extremely surprised if he had not discussed it with his colleagues, even if that was informally, but the decision was his and his allow. Because we don’t know if he consulted with others before making it, to assume he did not, without even asking him, seems rather presumptuous.

The law is to ensure expenses declarations were received in a timely manner, and even if some were late by a small margin, all were received from elected candidates.

Now I do know that in India, there were disqualified candidates for late submissions – but that was after 30 days, and most of those failed to submit expenses within any time scale.

Advocate Colley says that by doing nothing, the Island looks ridiculous, but to hold 18 bi-elections would not necessarily improve matters. It would look as if a rigid sticking to the rules rather than the intent of the law

“My duty’s to the law; you have no rights” (Inspector Javert, Les Miserables)

But would that be in the public interest? Watching Les Miserables on Sunday evenings brings home how Inspector Javert would have felt at home with a decision to prosecute regardless of the circumstances. He is flexible, unbending, because to him, the law is the highest authority. He cannot see beyond the law to the reasons behind the law.

In the eyes of Javert, Jean Valjean deserves judgment and condemnation because he has broken the law. Do we want Javert’s abstract justice of retribution? Is that in the public interest?

After all, we the people, have voted for those elected. No one has spent more than they should. Should our votes be cast aside, ignored, purely because of an infraction regarding a late submission of expenses (and remember, the expenses were submitted in the end)? That is the real public interest question.