Jersey Unreported Judgments

Elections

[2022]JRC125

Royal Court

(Samedi)

10 June 2022

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE ELECTIONS (JERSEY) LAW 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR A CONNÉTABLE IN THE PARISH OF ST MARY

Mark Temple Q.C., Attorney General.

EX TEMPORE judgment

the bailiff:

1.        The court is sitting this morning to consider the consequences of the notice give by Mr Mark Baker of his withdrawal from the election for the post of the Constable of St Mary and what if any consequential orders the Court might make under the Elections (Jersey) Law 2002. 

2.        We agree that the election should continue.  There are two other candidates.  The parishioners will get a real choice and the issue that was confronted in the legislation where there should be a section on the ballot for none of the above does not accordingly arise in these circumstances. 

3.        The stage that has been reached is that the postal vote forms have been issued for St Mary as far as we are aware, and at least 84 have been returned to the Judicial Greffe.  It is therefore possible that a number of those will record votes for Mr Baker who is no longer a candidate.  The issue arises as to whether or note this Court should take steps to enable those who may have returned a vote for Mr Baker to vote again.  It is important the Court makes the decisions that it does in early course because pre-poll voting starts on Monday and the poll itself is scheduled for 22^nd June, namely the week after next.

4.        We have received extremely helpful argument and submissions from the Attorney General who points out to us the primacy of the right of individuals to vote in a secret ballot in elections as enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.  The position is that were the envelopes for the postal votes to be opened, either prior to polling day or indeed on the morning of polling day they will identify not only what votes have been cast for the Constables but also what votes have been cast for the Deputies.  There are enormous practical difficulties if not impossibility, in ensuring that the confidentiality of those ballot papers will remain intact. 

5.        It seems therefore that not only must we confirm that any ballot papers for the office of Connétable returning a vote for Mr Baker must be treated as invalid ballot papers and therefore not capable of being counted, but there is no mechanism for those votes to be changed.  Accordingly we make the orders suggested to us by the Attorney in his written arguments in the following terms:-

(i)        the election for the office of Connétable in the Parish of St Mary may proceed on the basis of the remaining two candidates, despite the withdrawal of the third candidate Mr Mark Anthony Baker;

(ii)       with regard to any ballot papers which have yet to be issued in the election for the office of Connétable of St Mary then for those ballot papers the name of Mr Baker must be omitted from the list of candidates by arranging for the name of Mr Baker, and any other information on the row which relates to him, to be struck through or obliterated;

(iii)      that, as we have just said, any vote cast for Mr Baker shall be treated as an invalid vote under Article 51(1) of the Elections (Jersey) Law 2002;

(iv)      that Mr Baker be removed from any official list of candidates for the said election published online;

(v)       that Mr Baker shall not be included in any official list of candidates which is issued from this date onwards;

(vi)      that appropriate signage must be made available in any polling station in St Mary to ensure that the electors are made aware that Mr Baker has withdrawn as a candidate and that a vote cast for him will be deemed to be an invalid vote pursuant to Article 51(1) of the said Law, and to that we add that in the pre-poll stations a notice should be put up in similar terms so that when pre-poll voting starts next week anyone seeking a pre-poll vote for St Mary will have that drawn to their attention; and

(vii)     lastly, we are asked to consider whether or not any contact be made to the electors of St Mary who have registered to vote by post to inform them (for the benefit of those who have yet to cast their vote) that Mr Baker has withdrawn.  We see no difficulty with that suggestion and accordingly we make that order as well. 

Authorities

Elections (Jersey) Law 2002.