Select a region
A campaign group has raised their concerns with deputies about election candidates not needing police checks, after the current rules were deemed “suitable and sufficient” by the responsible committee.
Night-time safety charity SafetyNet is also calling on the community to share their views with politicians ahead of a States debate on the mater next week.
The States Assembly & Constitution Committee was ordered to investigate tougher candidacy rules after initially proposing to liberalise the requirements, but it concluded that DBS checks would be unreasonable, costly, and undeliverable ahead of the next election.
It added that there are already suitable requirements for candidates to declare serious convictions which make it “highly unlikely” individuals who had committed murder or sexual offences won't be able to hide their crimes.
But it did say that public sight of these declarations could be improved.
SafetyNet said that “in some cases, a sexual offender may run for election without needing to disclose their offence.
“We support the right of convicted criminals to run for election. We also support the right of the public to know if they are voting for a convicted criminal. Currently, the public does not fully have this right.
“We are also concerned that, without DBS checks, we may unknowingly invite convicted sex offenders to events with victim-survivors.”
Pictured: Deputy Carl Meerveld will present unchanged election plans to the Assembly next week.
SACC, which will urge deputies to agree with existing criminal checks for candidates next week, studied police checks for months and said introducing them locally would be unusual by western democratic standards.
It would require a change of UK law to implement, it found.
“The position on vetting UK political candidates is clear; and even if the UK were minded to change its stance, it would not be possible for those laws to be amended, and for Guernsey to follow suit, in time for the 2025 General Election.
“Mandating a DBS check for candidates which would disclose minor or non-violent offences as well as certain spent convictions could deter suitable and capable candidates from standing and could be seen as an unreasonable invasion of privacy.”
The administrative burden could delay the election process, and there is nothing stopping a candidate voluntarily paying for the checks and publishing them, it argued.
Beefed up conviction declarations have also been argued against, with SACC saying it would be unfair to judge people outside of Guernsey’s legal standards and expectations, with some ‘crimes’ possibly declared could’ve been committed in “rogue or authoritarian states”.
The States return after the summer recess on 4 September.
SACC not for turning over enhanced criminal checks at elections
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.