Channel Islands Collections bl.uk > Help for researchers Home > Find help by region > Europe > United Kingdom > Channel Islands Collections Channel Islands Collections The Channel Islands are a group of islands off the west coast of Normandy (France), comprising Jersey, Guernsey and the smaller islands of Herm, Sark, Little Sark, Alderney, Lihou, Jethou and Burhou. They have their own primary legislative systems but are British Crown Dependencies. We hold a rich collection of Channel Island books, periodicals, official publications, maps and topographical images, stamps and sound recordings. Links West View of the Town of St Helier, the Hill and Harbour, Jersey by G. Heriot. British Library Shelfmark K.Top LV, 75.b © The British Library Board History and Language History The Channel Islands were originally part of the Duchy of Normandy but were severed in 1204 AD when King John lost mainland Normandy to France. King John promised the Islands independence and the right to continue governing themselves when the Islands confirmed their allegiance to the English Crown. Agents of the Crown called "Bailiffs" enforced the laws and ran the courts, one in Jersey and one in Guernsey.

Since the late thirteenth century the two Bailiwicks have continued to be administered separately. The island states have different political, economic and cultural characteristics. All are exempt from English tax. During the French Revolution a number of wealthy French exiles fled France and settled on the Islands. Later, the French author Victor Hugo (1802-1885) lived on Guernsey at Hauteville House, now the property of the City of Paris. Hugo completed his novel Les Miserables on Guernsey. On 30 June 1940 the Channel Islands were invaded by Germany. The Occupation lasted until 9 May 1945 when an Allied relief force liberated the islands. Today tourism, financial services, market gardening and light industry are key elements of the economy. Hauteville House, home of Victor Hugo. Image courtesy of Visit Guernsey © The British Library Board Language Though English is now the dominant language on the Channel Islands, each island of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark has its own native local French dialect: respectively Jerriais, Guernesiais and Sercquiais. These traditional spoken vernaculars of the Islands are varieties of Norman French.

The original Normans who came from Norway and Denmark spoke Norse and there are still a number of Norse elements in the Islands' dialects. Though standard French has never been an everyday spoken language in any of the islands it has served as an official language of legislation and debate in legislative assemblies. The evacuation of the Islands' children in the Second World War meant that when they returned they had become more at home with English and their families tended to speak in English too. It is only within living memory that English has replaced French as the language of legislation. Overview of Channel Islands Collections in the British Library Jersey harbour. Lord Burghley's Atlas. Shelfmark: Royal 18.d.III. © The British Library Board Because the Channel Islands do not come under the United Kingdom laws of Legal Deposit the Library actively acquires Channel Islands publications through purchase and donation. We aspire to maintain a comprehensive collection of research-level publications about the Channel Islands. We collect Social Sciences and Official Publications from the Islands and have comprehensive coverage of the newspapers of Guernsey and Jersey as part of our Newspaper Collections .

Dictionaries and studies of Channel Islands languages can be found in Explore the British Library , while recordings of various forms of Channel Islands speech are contained within our Sound Archive , individual recordings being located via the online catalogue Cadensa . Our historical collections have particular strengths in maps and topographical views, notably in King George III’s Topographical Collection, held in the Map Library , and in its Early Photographically Illustrated books . More recently annotated compilations of postcards have meant that the Library has a number of books in the social history genre Channel Islands in Old Photographs . A significant collection of Channel Islands stamps is also held, as part of the Philatelic Collections . A selection of historical Channel Islands images is available for purchase from Images Online . Select Bibliography Vince Gardner, The Channel Islands. (World Bibliographies Series no. 209). Oxford: Clio Press, 1988. Shelfmark: HLR 942.34 Victor Coysh, The Channel Islands. A New Study. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1977. Shelfmark: HLR 942.341978 Ferdinand B.

Tupper, The History of Guernsey and its Bailiwick with occasional notices of Jersey, Gurnsey, Le Lievre and London. Marchall Simkin & Co., (Second edition), 1876. Shelfmark: HLR 942.342 Maguerite Syvret and Joan Stevens, Balleine's History of Jersey. Chichester: Phillimore, 1998. Shelfmark: HLR 942.341 Alastair Layzell, (ed.) Who's Who in the Channel Islands, 1987. Jersey: Who's Who in the Channel Islands. Shelfmark: YA.1988.a.8634 Legislation and Legal Resources - Guernsey Royal Court Legislation and Legal Resources Legislation and Legal Resources Introduction Legislation in the Bailiwick of Guernsey can comprise a number of forms, mainly as follows: Projets de Loi, which after Royal Assent, become Laws; Ordinances; and, Statutory Instruments. Legislation in Guernsey is prepared by the Law Officers.

Amongst other things, they take cognisance of international law obligations arising from treaties and conventions and of human rights. They give legislative effect to policies which have already been approved by the States after consideration of a States Report (or occasionally a Requête). Projets de Loi and Ordinances will have been carefully examined by the Legislation Select Committee to ensure, amongst a range of factors, that they conform with those States approved policies, before being presented to the States for approval. Projets de Loi Projets de Loi require the sanction of Her Majesty in Council, which is given by an "Order in Council". Following registration by the Royal Court, they are known as Laws. Orders in Council are the pre-eminent legislation, and may significantly impact on peoples' (or companies') rights and obligations. Laws adopted by the States of Deliberation may (or may not) be intended to apply also in Alderney and/or Sark. If they are to apply beyond Guernsey they usually (but not always) require the assent of the legislative assemblies of Alderney and/or Sark.

Common assent is not necessary in the case of criminal laws, nor in the case of Alderney Income Tax (because Guernsey Income Tax extends also to Alderney), nor in the case of legislation on transferred services. Because of the need for approval in some instances in Alderney and/or Sark and the need for Royal Sanction, Orders in Council cannot come into force until some time has elapsed after approval by the States of Guernsey. It is worth noting that the Taxes and Duties (Provisional Effect) (Guernsey) Law, 1997, enables the States when approving a Projet de Loi dealing with tax related provisions to declare by Resolution that that Projet, or part of it, shall have effect from such date as may be specified in the Resolution as if it were a Law sanctioned by Her Majesty. The Law Officers prepare an opinion letter on a Projet de Loi. In essence it is a short summary of the proposed legislation. The opinion letter is sent to the Bailiff and is incorporated in a Petition which the Bailiff signs and sends to the Lieutenant-Governor who transmits the Petition to the Ministry of Justice.

Projets are usually sent by the Ministry of Justice to the Government Department which in the United Kingdom deals with the same area of law. The purpose of the referral is to obtain confirmation that none of the provisions may be in breach of international obligations. Advice is also sought from Ministry of Justice lawyers before submission to Ministry of Justice Ministers for consideration as member of the Committee advising the Privy Council. A summary of the legislation is then submitted to the Privy Council Office some five days before a meeting of the Privy Council. Privy Council Office officials prepare a note for the Lord President of the Council referring to each item of business for the meeting of the Privy Council. With the approval of the Lord President of the Council an Order of Business paper is submitted to Her Majesty's Private Secretary for the meeting of the Council. From time to time, the Law Officers will have a sent a draft Projet to the Ministry of Justice before submitting it to the States of Deliberation in order to benefit in advance from any observations by lawyers in the relevant Government department or Ministry of Justice lawyers. Her Majesty will sanction the legislation in the presence of at least three Privy Councillors.

Following Royal Sanction, the Secretary to the Privy Council signs the Order in Council which is then transmitted to the Ministry of Justice through official channels for registration in the Royal Court. At the direction of the Royal Court, Orders in Council applicable to Alderney and Sark are transmitted to those islands. Orders in Council are made by Her Majesty as Orders in right of the Crown and not in right of the United Kingdom. When the Lord Chancellor and the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey advise Her Majesty, they do so as servants of Her Majesty. Her Majesty's Government should not become involved in the process for United Kingdom political reasons. There are nullification and consequential provisions in the event that Her Majesty in Council declines to sanction it. Ordinances Ordinances can be free-standing legislation concerning less fundamental matters. There has for many centuries been a power for the legislatures in the Bailiwick to make Ordinances in exercise of a customary power to do so, but the limits of that customary power are ill-defined. The common law power can be deduced from an analysis of established custom and practice.

These days, Ordinances are more often than not made pursuant to an express power conferred by a Law (often referred to as an enabling Law). Ordinances in such cases fill out the detail not included in the text of Orders in Council to the extent, in effect, permitted by Her Majesty in Council. Over the last century, the extent of the Ordinance making powers conferred in an Order in Council, has expanded in line with the evolving maturity of the legislatures. Custom and practice is ever developing. Guernsey Ordinances usually apply only in Guernsey (which normally includes Herm and Jethou). Because no further sanction or assent is necessary they can, and frequently do, come into force immediately on approval by the States of Guernsey. In recent decades certain Ordinances apply in Alderney and Sark where a power has been conferred in an Order in Council and Alderney and Sark have agreed that this be so. Recently, some Ordinances give to each of Alderney and Sark the option of disapplying the Ordinance by a vote within four months of the Ordinance being made in Guernsey.

In very urgent cases, pursuant to the powers conferred in The Reform (Guernsey) Law, 1948 as amended, a Guernsey Ordinance can be made and brought into force immediately by the Legislation Select Committee, but is subject to subsequent annulment by the States. There are similar powers to legislate urgently by Ordinance in Alderney and Sark. Statutory Instrument A Statutory Instrument is a form of delegated legislation, invariably delegated to Departments of the States, enabling matters of detail to be filled out within the legislative framework. Statutory Instruments will come into force according to the provisions of the Order in Council or Ordinance which permits such detailed provisions to be enacted by Statutory Instrument. Commonly the words Regulations or Rules or Codes of Practice are used. In most cases a Statutory Instrument can come into force immediately, but subject to a right of annulment by the States; in some others it cannot come into force until approved by the States. States of Alderney - iSnare Free Encyclopedia States of Alderney This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

(December 2016) e The Location of Alderney in the Bailiwick of Guernsey The States of Alderney (French: États d'Aurigny) is the parliament/council and the legislature of Alderney , part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey . The origin of the States is unknown, but has operated from the mediaeval period. The States of Alderney comprises ten Members , and a President of the States of Alderney , currently Stuart Trought who was elected in 2010 to replace Sir Norman Browse who retired after eight years of presidency. Contents 6 External links Structure The States of Alderney includes ten members, half of whom have to stand for election every two years so that the entire parliament is changed over a period of four years. There is also a president who must stand for election every four years, although there is no constitutional limit on the number of terms they may serve. Routine government is performed by three committees, Policy and Finance, General Services, and Building and Development Control, each of which works under a different mandate and has a separate budget.

Extra committees are usually formed in order to deal with specific areas of policy, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Management Committee. In addition, two members of the States are nominated as representatives to the Guernsey States of Deliberation . Legal Status The island is a self-governing Crown Dependency, part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey since Elizabethan times. Certain services, known as 'transferred services' are provided in Alderney by the Guernsey Government under an agreement entered into between the States of Alderney and the States of Guernsey in 1948 ('the 1948 Agreement'). [1] Defence and Foreign Policy are reserved to the Crown, which in modern constitutional terms means the relevant United Kingdom government (the Ministries of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK liaises with Alderney (as with all Crown Dependencies), through the Ministry of Justices. Formally, ultimate legislative, executive and judicial authority continues to vest in the Privy Council which approves all primary legislation passed by the States of Alderney, and through its Judicial Committee, is its highest court of appeal.

By constitutional convention , the British Crown does not involve itself directly in Alderney domestic government, although it retains a theoretical ability to do so if 'good government' is at risk. (There is an analogous power in respect of the British Overseas Territories which has been exercised in recent years, in order to deal with systemic corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands.) Elections Main articles: Elections in Alderney , Leader of Alderney , and States of Alderney Member The President of the States of Alderney is directly elected every four years. Half of the ten States Members are elected every two years for a four-year mandate, which means that every four years the composition of the parliament changes completely. The election held on 6 December 2008 had a turnout of over 700 people produced a frequency of 65.6%. The whole island is a single constituency. [2] The current members were elected in the elections of 2014 and elections of 2016 .

[3] They are: Main article: Politics of Alderney Although the origins of the States of Alderney are unknown, it has functioned since the Middle Ages , making it one of the world’s older parliaments. Less than 50% of Alderney's population had returned to the island after World War II. This led to the Parliament of the United Kingdom discussing what to do with Alderney as land ownership markers and official papers had been destroyed in the war and Alderney's economy was stagnating as a result of more than half of the islanders not returning. The United Kingdom's Home Secretary , Chuter Ede recommended " Guernseyfication " of Alderney. In 1948 His Majesty's Privy Council decided that Alderney would become a part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey again. Later in the year, both the States of Alderney and the States of Guernsey voted through the Alderney (Application of Legislation) Law which gave powers to the States of Guernsey in respect of certain "transferred services" in 1949.

[4] The law also provided for a democratically elected President of the States of Alderney to be the Leader of Alderney as the Judge of Alderney had been superseded as the representative of the Crown on Alderney by the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey . [5] References Constitution, position and customs territory - States of Guernsey Mainly sunny this afternoon, then fair or fine tonight with the risk of some icy surfaces. High5°CLow0°C VisibilityGood.Open SeasMainly slight with a low swell.WindEasterly light F3 to moderate F4, soon increasing moderate F4 to fresh F5 this afternoon, veering southeast this evening and decreasing light F3 to moderate F4, then light F2 to 3 by morning. Mainly sunny this afternoon, then fair or fine tonight with the risk of some icy surfaces. High5°CLow0°C VisibilityGood.Open SeasMainly slight with a low swell.WindEasterly light F3 to moderate F4, soon increasing moderate F4 to fresh F5 this afternoon, veering southeast this evening and decreasing light F3 to moderate F4, then light F2 to 3 by morning.

Constitution, position and customs territory Constitution, position and customs territory Share this page Constitutional Position The Channel Islands are situated in the Bay of St. Malo off the Northwest coast of France and comprise of the Bailiwick of Guernsey ( Guernsey , Alderney , Sark and Herm ) and the Bailiwick of Jersey . They are self-governing Crown dependency with their own legislative assemblies, systems of local administration and laws and their own courts. Matters concerning defence and international relations, including relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the British Government. Customs Territory When in 1973 the UK joined the EC, special arrangements were made for the Channel Islands. Protocol 3 to the UK Act of Accession applies EC Customs rules to the Channel Islands, and Article 3 of the Community Customs Code (EC Regulation 2913/92, as amended) includes the Channel Islands as part of the EC's Customs territory. This clearly portrays what was set out in Protocol 3 and states that for Customs purposes the Channel Islands are within the Customs territory of the EC.

The Islands are excluded from the provisions of the EC Treaty, apart from those ensuring the proper functioning of free trade with the EC Article 25(c) of the UK Act of Accession. These provisions allow for the free movement of goods between the Islands and the EC without any Customs charges being levied. As the Islands are not part of the European Union VAT is not applicable on goods in the Islands, however goods sent from the Islands to an EC country are subject on arrival in that country to any applicable VAT charges. The Community Customs Code and the Implementing Regulation EC Regulation 2454/93 , are the basis for standard Customs procedures throughout the Customs territory of the Community. Share this page From Sark to the Supreme Court From Sark to the Supreme Court Megan Pullum and Robert Titterington This article was prepared following the judgment of R (Barclay) v Secy of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor and seeks to highlight some of the important constitutional findings made in the context of the Island of Sark. 1.

Introduction 1 On 30 June 2014, an important constitutional case, R (Barclay) v Secy of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, [1] was heard in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The appellants were the Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor, the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The respondents (Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay) had withdrawn from the proceedings and did not appear, but an advocate to the court was appointed given the significant constitutional issues raised by the appeal. Interveners were the Attorney General of Jersey and States of Guernsey. 2 The central issue concerned an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Court [2] to grant a declaration that the decision of the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, recommending approval of the Reform (Sark) (Amendment) (No 2) Law 2010 (“the 2010 Law”) was unlawful. A provision of the Law, according to the Administrative Court, was incompatible with art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

At the heart of the case was an issue of jurisdiction—whether the English courts have jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility with the ECHR of a law enacted by the legislature of Sark. Two additional issues namely, justiciability (i.e. whether the lawfulness of the legal advice was justiciable in the High Court) and the compatibility of the 2010 Law with art 6 of the ECHR were also considered by the court. 3 The Supreme Court elected to hear arguments on the jurisdiction point only and, having done so, unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration made by the Administrative Court. In its judgment, handed down on 22 October 2014, it held that the courts of the United Kingdom do have jurisdiction to judicially review an Order in Council which is made on the advice of the UK Government acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom. However, whilst the Administrative Court did therefore have jurisdiction to entertain the respondents’ claim, it should not have exercised it in this case. Lady Hale gave the substantive judgment, with which the other Justices (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke and Reed) agreed. 2.

The Channel Islands Brief history 4 The Channel Islands are an archipelago situated off the coast of Normandy. They are Dependencies of the British Crown and consist of two separate bailiwicks, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Guernsey and Jersey were part of the Duchy of Normandy when Duke William, following his conquest of England in 1066, became King William I of England. They have since been subject to the English Crown as successor to the Dukes of Normandy. They have never, however, become part of England administratively or legally. The Crown Dependencies 5 The Crown Dependencies are the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The Bailiwick of Guernsey includes the separate jurisdictions of Alderney and Sark and the Islands of Herm, Jethou and Lihou. Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown. They have their own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and their own courts of law. The Crown Dependencies are not represented in the UK Parliament.

Guernsey has a directly elected legislature (known as the States of Deliberation) and operates a system of consensus government through multi-member Departments and the Policy Council, the latter constituted by the Minister of each Department and chaired by the Chief Minister. Guernsey has responsibility for its own domestic policies. Relationship between Crown Dependencies and the UK 6 The relationship between the UK and Guernsey (and the other Crown Dependencies) has always been close. The unwritten constitutional relationship between the Islands and the UK is the outcome of historical processes and accepted practice. However, this relationship is in right of the Crown (as successor to the Dukes of Normandy), to whom allegiance is owed; it is not in right of Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government. 7 The Crown Dependencies raise their own public revenue and do not receive subsidies from or pay contributions to the UK. They do, however, make annual voluntary contributions towards the costs of their defence and international representation by the UK. The Queen is the Head of State of each Island and the Lieutenant-Governor of each Dependency is Her Majesty’s personal representative.

The Crown is ultimately responsible for the good government of each Island (although the limits of this responsibility have never been tested), and HMG is responsible for the defence and international representation of each Island. The Crown exercises its responsibility for the Islands through a committee of the Privy Council charged with Channel Islands affairs (the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, “the Committee”) and it also makes appointments to certain judicial and other posts in each Island. International relations 8 The long-standing practice of the UK when it ratifies, accedes to, or accepts a treaty, convention or agreement is to do so on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any of the Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories that wish the treaty to apply to them (for which, by convention, due consultation will have taken place). 9 In certain circumstances, the Crown Dependencies may be authorised to conclude their own international agreements by a process of entrustment.

For example, all the Crown Dependencies have autonomy in domestic matters including taxation [3] and, having made commitments to the OECD on the exchange of tax information, they have consequently negotiated tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) with an increasing number of other states by way of Letters of Entrustment issued to their Governments under the signature of the appropriate UK Minister. EU & ECHR 10 The Channel Islands are not members of the European Union, but have a special arrangement with the EU by virtue of obligations arising under Protocol 3 of the UK’s Act of Accession (the precise details of which are not necessary for the purposes of this paper).

11 The ECHR provided in art 63 (now art 56, since the Eleventh Protocol) that a Contracting State could declare that the Convention should extend to all or any of the territories for whose international relations it was responsible, with the effect that the provisions of the Convention would be applied in such territories “with due regard, however, to local requirements.” The Convention was extended in this way to the Bailiwick of Jersey in 1953, and the First Protocol, which contains a similar power to extend in art 4, was extended to the Bailiwick of Guernsey in 1988. 12 In the course of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the House of Lords rejected an amendment to apply it to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and a similar amendment was withdrawn in the House of Commons. Instead the Convention was applied to the Channel Islands by domestic legislation. The Human Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, which applies in Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, has given effect to Convention rights and came into force on 1 September 2006.

Legislation 13 The legislatures of the Channel Islands are the States of Jersey, the States of Deliberation of Guernsey, the States of Alderney and the Chief Pleas of Sark. They have exercised legislative powers in relation to their respective jurisdictions for many years. Those powers arise predominantly under customary law and Royal Charter, and further to statutory powers created by way of Orders in Council. The independence of the Channel Islands to manage their own affairs and to enact their own legislation has been recognised for centuries. In particular, further to Charters granted by successive English monarchs from the 14th to 17th centuries, important rights and privileges of the inhabitants and the laws and customs of the Islands were acknowledged and ratified by the Crown. 14 In both the Bailiwicks of Guernsey (including Alderney and Sark) and Jersey the normal legislative process insofar as “primary legislation” is concerned is for the Queen in Council, acting on the initiative of one or more of the legislatures, to approve a draft Law, or Projet de Loi in the case of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, following a recommendation from the Committee. UK legislation does not normally extend to the Crown Dependencies.

In instances where it does extend, it may do so either by virtue of the Act itself or by Order in Council made with their agreement under an enabling provision (permissive extent clause) contained in the Act. For an Act to extend directly otherwise than by means of an Order in Council is now very unusual. By convention, Departments of Her Majesty’s Government must consult the Crown Dependencies at the earliest opportunity in the event that extension or the inclusion of a permissive extent clause in an Act is under consideration. 3. Sark Background 15 Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and has a population of about 600 people. The main Island of Sark is about 3½ miles long and at its widest point about 1¼ miles wide. In the adjacent territorial waters are numerous islets and rocks, the largest of which is Brecqhou, which is separated from Sark by the Gouliot Passage. There is evidence that Sark was variously inhabited and invaded, from about 3,000 BC onwards.

However, by the end of the 14th century, the Island appears to have been largely abandoned and there is little evidence to show that the Island was used for anything other than for the grazing of animals and as a safe harbour for mariners (including pirates) for many years thereafter. 16 The circumstances of Sark changed decisively, however, in 1563 when Royal Commissioners granted the Island of Sark to Helier de Carteret, Seigneur of the fief of St Ouen in Jersey. The grant of the Island was subsequently confirmed by Letters Patent from Queen Elizabeth I that were delivered under the Great Seal on 6 August 1565. The Chief Pleas of Sark 17 The legislative assembly of Sark is known as the Chief Pleas of Sark. Traditionally it was the assembly of the Tenants of the original Tenements established by Helier de Carteret in 1565. One of the conditions of the grant required him to ensure that at least 40 men occupied the Island for the purposes of its defence.

In order to encourage such men and their families to live on Sark, de Carteret created a number of Tenements and the Tenants of those landholdings were entitled to a seat in the Chief Pleas. 18 Currently the Chief Pleas sit at least four times per year. The Tenants, however, as from January 2009, no longer have a right to sit and Chief Pleas currently consists of 28 elected members, known as Conseillers, and the Seigneur and the President of Chief Pleas. Neither the Seigneur nor the President has the right to vote at meetings of Chief Pleas, albeit the former has the right to speak. He also enjoys certain rights of appointment and has other historical rights, one of which is touched on below. 19 The Chief Pleas can legislate in two ways, that is by Law and by Ordinance. It can legislate for Sark on any matter by Projet de Loi, which requires Royal Sanction before it can have legal effect.

The power to legislate is in part concurrent with that of the States of Deliberation of Guernsey which may legislate for Sark on matters of criminal justice without the consent of the Chief Pleas and on any other matter with their consent. Her Majesty in Council grants Royal Sanction (by Order in Council) to any Projet de Loi presented pursuant to a recommendation by the Committee. She may also dismiss any petitions requesting Her Majesty not to sanction any Projet which may have been submitted, if that is the recommendation of the Committee. 20 In considering whether or not to recommend approval, the Committee will in general respect the decision of the Chief Pleas to approve a particular Law and there is thought to be a presumption in favour of recommending Royal Assent. However, consideration is given to the Crown’s responsibilities so that if a Projet de Loi, or any provision of a Projet, clearly violates or is incompatible with the Crown’s international obligations (for example treaty obligations, such as under the European Convention on Human Rights) then a recommendation may (exceptionally) be made to withhold sanction.

(It is more common, but still exceptional, for draft legislation to be returned to a Crown Dependency by the Ministry of Justice identifying whatever issue there is and inviting the relevant legislature to reconsider. This was the case with an earlier draft of Sark’s reform legislation.) 21 The Chief Pleas also legislates on a range of local affairs by Ordinance (which the Seigneur may veto, albeit this only has effect as a delaying power) made in exercise of customary law making powers or powers created under Laws (including the Reform (Sark) Law 2008). The Royal Court of Guernsey may annul an Ordinance on the ground that it is ultra vires the Chief Pleas, but the Chief Pleas may appeal to the Privy Council against the annulment. 22 Between meetings, the business of the Chief Pleas is conducted through various Committees which function in effect as the executive government of Sark. The Seneschal of Sark 23 In 1675, the office of Seneschal was created by the Crown. The main function of the Seneschal was to dispense justice, as Sark’s chief judge.

However, the Seneschal’s functions also included acting as president of the Island’s legislature. The so-called “dual role” of the Seneschal (as sole resident judge and president of Sark’s elected assembly) was held by the English Court of Appeal to be incompatible with art 6 of the ECHR in judicial review proceedings commenced in 2008 by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay. Following the court decision, the Chief Pleas decided to split the dual role and enacted the 2010 Reform Law which was designed to achieve an appropriate division of functions. The legislation was implemented in February 2013 when the current Seneschal was sworn in as Seneschal with almost exclusively judicial functions and the former Seneschal was elected unopposed to the newly created office of President of the Chief Pleas of Sark on 27 February. 24 The court of the Seneschal has unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters, but a more limited jurisdiction in criminal matters. There is a right of appeal to the Royal Court of Guernsey, which also has concurrent first instance jurisdiction in civil matters and sole jurisdiction over more serious criminal matters.

Appeals from the Royal Court lie to the Court of Appeal for Guernsey, and from that Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 4. The central issues of the case Background to the appeals 25 Far-reaching reforms to the traditional constitution of Sark were made by the Reform (Sark) Law 2008 (“the 2008 Reform Law”) which, as mentioned above, was successfully challenged by the respondents to the current proceedings, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, on the ground that the dual role of the office of Seneschal, as President of the Chief Pleas and chief judge, was incompatible with art 6 of the ECHR, in R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor and Secy of State for Justice [4] (“Barclay (No 1)”). The 2010 Law was enacted in response, removing the right of the Seneschal to serve as President or member of the Chief Pleas and making provisions for office as chief judge alone. The respondents considered that these provisions were still incompatible with the principle of the impartiality and independence of the judiciary, required by art 6.

26 The respondents applied to the Administrative Court of England and Wales for an order declaring that the Order in Council made on 12 October 2011, by which Royal Assent was given to the 2010 Law, was unlawful because the Law was incompatible with the ECHR. The Administrative Court granted the declaration to the limited extent of declaring that a provision relating to the Sensechal’s salary was incompatible with art 6 of the ECHR. The appellants therefore appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction to do so or, if it had, that the jurisdiction should not have been exercised. A “leapfrog” appeal was permitted given the decision in Barclay (No 1) which had taken as its premise that there was in fact the jurisdiction now, for the first time, being disputed by the appellants. 27 In giving its judgment, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that the UK courts do have jurisdiction to judicially review an Order in Council which is made on the advice of the UK Government acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom.

The hearing—points to note 28 The Supreme Court decided on the first day of the hearing that it only wished to hear the parties’ arguments relating to jurisdiction. Therefore, the arguments put forward by the parties in relation to justiciability and the art 6 ECHR point were not considered by the Court, albeit that, as the arguments progressed, it proved difficult at times to dissociate some of the jurisdiction points from issues of justiciability. The judgment—key findings of the Supreme Court 29 It is not possible to state a general rule as to whether an Order made by Her Majesty in Council is amenable to judicial review in the courts of England and Wales, given the wide variety of circumstances in which such orders are made (para 26) 30 The Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) does not apply to Channel Islands legislation as it applies in the Channel Islands, and does not include an Order in Council made in exercise of the royal prerogative in the definition of primary legislation subject to the HRA. For the courts of England and Wales to entertain challenges to the compatibility of Island legislation with Convention rights would clearly be to subvert the scheme of the Islands’ own human rights legislation.

A challenge to Sark legislation on the ground of incompatibility with the ECHR should therefore be brought in the Island courts under the Human Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, from which an appeal would ultimately lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is not for the courts of England and Wales to interpret the law of the Channel Islands or decide what is law there. The courts of the Bailiwick are infinitely better placed to assess whether legislation strikes a fair balance between the protection of individual rights and the general interests of the community and the appropriate forum for this claim for the purpose of ECHR. The courts of England and Wales should not have entertained the challenge in Barclay (No 1) (see paras 31–40). 31 The appellants had argued (with reference to the case of Bancoult (No 2) [5] ), that the courts of England and Wales have no jurisdiction to judicially review the process whereby the Privy Council gives Royal Assent to Island legislation.

Sark has a functioning legislature and its own system of laws and courts (unlike other Overseas Colonies), and this is a very powerful reason for the courts of England and Wales not to interfere with the business of the people of Sark. It does not follow, however, that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge in a more appropriate case (see paras 46–47). 32 It is the clear responsibility of the UK government in international law to ensure that the Islands comply with such international obligations as apply to them. It is to be expected that any dispute will be decided by negotiation with the Island authorities but, if this proves impossible, a challenge could be made in the courts of England and Wales (paras 48–49). The reality is that the appellants advise Her Majesty both in right of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and of Sark and in right of the UK because of the UK’s continuing responsibility for the international relations of the Bailiwick, but, unlike the position in Bancoult No 2, it is not enough to ask whether a person is acting “in right of” the United Kingdom or of a colony or dependency: the consequence will depend upon why that question is being asked.

33 The appellants are legally accountable to the UK Parliament, and to the UK courts in an appropriate case (this was not one such case). The question of whether they might also be accountable to the courts of the Bailiwick was left open as it was not argued before the court (para 57). 34 As a general proposition, the courts of the United Kingdom do have jurisdiction to judicially review an Order in Council which is made on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom. Hence the Administrative Court did have jurisdiction to entertain this claim. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which that jurisdiction should not be exercised. This was one such case (para 58). 35 Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the declaration made by the Administrative Court (that the decision recommending approval of the Reform (Sark) (Amendment) (No 2) Law 2010 was unlawful because the provision in that Law relating to the remuneration of the office of the Seneschal was incompatible with art 6 of the ECHR) was set aside. 5.

Conclusions 36 The case confirms that the courts of the UK do have jurisdiction to judicially review an Order in Council made on the advice of HMG acting in whole or in part in the interests of the UK. This leaves open an avenue for some form of redress/review inter alia where Royal Assent is refused. 37 The court found that when advising Her Majesty, whether or not it is appropriate to make an Order giving effect to a Bailiwick or Sark Projet de Loi, the Lord Chancellor and other members of the Privy Council involved are advising Her Majesty both in right of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and of Sark and in right of the United Kingdom. 38 The court noted the common ground between the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Dependencies that there is a strong presumption in favour of granting Royal Assent to a measure which has been passed by an Island legislature. 39 The court did not hear the arguments concerning justiciability and made no decision about the grounds upon which Royal Assent might lawfully be withheld, but did state that any statement in the judgments in the Barclay (No 1) case as to the scope for withholding Royal Assent cannot be treated as authoritative.

40 In the longer term, it remains to be seen if any challenges to future (or extant legislation) on HR grounds are made in the Bailiwick courts. The Supreme Court case has not decided the ECHR point (as the arguments were not heard) but clearly, should that point be pursued, it is beyond doubt that the matter would be so pursued within the Bailiwick courts. 41 Finally, appeals to the Supreme Court will only be heard if they “raise an arguable point of law of general public importance”. This case clearly did so, and whilst the specific issues in the case relate to Sark, the decision is of significance to all four of the governments within the Channel Islands (if not also to Overseas Territories and all constitutional lawyers). It was the very significant constitutional implications of the matter for Jersey and Guernsey which prompted the Attorney General of Jersey and the States of Guernsey to intervene as parties in the Supreme Court appeal proceedings. Megan Pullum, QC is HM Comptroller (Solicitor General) and Robert Titterington is a Crown Advocate and Director of Legislative Drafting; Law Officers of the Crown, Guernsey.

Together they instructed Counsel in the above case, on behalf of the States of Guernsey

Question: What are the legislative assemblies of Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney called?
Answer: The States