Jersey's Elections (5) -------No Honour, Integrity or Confidence, What's New?

Following a complaint lodged by Nick Le Cornu and Gino Rosoli the losing candidates in the recent election for Deputies in St Helier Number 1 District, the Royal Court has rejected their complaint relating to an error in the Nomination Paper submitted by Scott Wickenden (above).

The Royal Court may well be of the belief that the submission of an invalid Nomination Paper was technical and inadvertent therefore not a matter of substance.  But is that acceptable, are Elections not supposed to be serious matters therefore requiring the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

The Public is entitled to expect States Members to be competent, honest and honourable. It should also expect its Courts to act in a fair and consistent way and deliver justice. Perhaps it’s because I am old fashioned and principled that I am not enamoured by the Court’s decision or share the relief experienced by Scott Wickenden when he says he just wants to get on with his job. The following paragraphs will explain my reasons.

Nomination Papers are vital documents and it is the responsibility of candidates to ensure that their signatories are not only on the electoral role but live in the relevant constituency. 

Having stood for election several times I know how important the Nomination Paper is and always ensured that my signatories were valid. Mr Wickenden failed this simple task. The other five candidates did not.

I understand that Mr Wickenden submitted his Nomination Paper to St Helier Parish Hall before the Nomination Meeting. The Nomination Paper contained the name of a woman who lived outside Number 1 District thereby rendering the document invalid. However the Officer at the Town Hall failed to spot the error. 

Given that Mr Wickenden would have been canvassing for 3 weeks before the day of the election It is hard to understand how he did not discover that one of his signatories lived in a different district or those close to him did not discover that fact. This leads one to ask whether he did know but chose not to disclose the information.

Most signatories vote for their nominee. However it is evident that the woman could not vote for Mr Wickenden at the Town Hall because as she had discovered that she was registered to vote in Number 2 District she voted at the Springfield Polling Station and therefore could not vote for him. It seems inconceivable that there was no communication between the pair of them before or after the election. Unfortunately the Royal Court was not sufficiently interested to allow the complainants to call the woman to give evidence so we shall never know the truth.

It is also hard to accept that at no time during the post election celebrations that the mistake did not come to light or was not discussed.  However even if one is prepared to believe that Mr Wickenden knew absolutely nothing of his mistake until it was revealed the day after the election, it is evident that he was prepared to sit tight in anticipation that the matter would disappear which questions his honesty and integrity.

Elections are ordered by the Royal Court which appoints its Jurats as Returning Officers. A Jurat was appointed to oversee the above election yet it appears there is no provision for the Court or its appointees to play any role in addressing invalid Nomination Papers. This is left to the unsuccessful candidates who will be perceived to be bad losers by pursuing the matter. This was certainly the case with Nick Le Cornu. I am not defending his inappropriate remarks about a fellow States Member but his mistake should not have been used as a reason for some of the media to attack him but turn a blind eye to a “mistake” by another politician.

The Royal Court should be setting higher bench marks for those who seek high office, yet in this particular case it appears that the bench mark was set well below the norm because of who one of the complainants was. One wonders what action would have followed had Mr Le Cornu won in similar circumstances. 

We are all capable of making mistakes but it is how we handle them that we are judged. Mr Wickenden was seeking the high office of Member of our Parliament whereby his competence, honesty and integrity should be beyond reproach. The Court accepts that he is incompetent but sadly it seemed unconcerned about his honesty and integrity.  

It is not disputed that by receiving more votes than three other candidates Mr Wickenden was elected, however he was elected by an electorate who believed that he was efficient, honest and honourable. With the number of unanswered questions, could that now be said of him?

I saw Mr Wickenden's interview on TV last night and he was clearly relieved, however he offered no apology for his mistake or for the expense incurred by the taxpayers and others in addressing it. Perhaps an honourable member would have apologised for his mistake as soon as it came to light. If  the mistake was known only after the result was announced, which seems highly unlikely, then he should have resigned thus allowing for a re-election.

His action would have been seen as one of humility and honesty which I am sure would have seen his vote increased. As it is unless there are answers to my questions above there will always be question marks about his integrity and honesty.

I note that Mr Wickenden is now a member of the Public Accounts Committee chaired by Deputy Andrew Lewis. Given the concerns raised in my previous blog concerning Deputy Lewis it is evident that they are well suited so one can understand why there is so little confidence in our parliamentary and judicial system.