GFSC 'suppressed evidence during investigation'

Wednesday 26 June 2019

A former director of a trust company is suing the GFSC for £7.4million, claiming it allegedly breached his human rights during an investigation it carried out in to his conduct when working in financial services.

Alan Chick was sanctioned by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission in 2018 because it found he had breached regulations people in his role are compelled to follow by law. He was fined £50,000 and prohibited from acting as a director for five years.

But Mr Chick has never felt his sanctions were fair. He feels his evidence will "show the Commission took a pro-active decision on what evidence was or was not included in the Commission’s evidence bundle. Any failure to obtain or the apparent suppression of the relevant evidence lays squarely with the Commission."

Part of the GFSC's public statement it made about the sanctioning of Mr Chick which outlines the wrong doings found. The full account can be read here. 

The GFSC regulates all of Guernsey's financial services industry, with the aim of protecting its reputation on the international stage. 

When he was originally facing sanctions, Mr Chick's first port of call was to appeal the decision to a 'senior decision maker' - following the GFSC's process - but the result of that appeal got him no where. After that, he did not feel able to pursue his appeal through the Royal Court because of financial reasons. 

Now though, he is claiming the GFSC's actions and investigation breached the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”

The amounts Mr Chick is claiming. 

Mr Chick first appeared in court last Friday, where he confirmed to the Deputy Bailiff Richard McMahon that he would be representing himself in his case. The GFSC also sent a lawyer to confirm it would be defending the application. 

He says his reasons for the action are that, during the Commission's investigation, Mr Chick felt staff failed to address 'serious issues raised in formal complaints and appeals' which were submitted within the guidelines, to submit to requests under the data protection laws, and he also felt they made 'inaccurate and unsubstantiated' comments during a seminar on 9 October 2018. 

These, Mr Chick will argue, breach articles six, seven, and 14 of the Human Rights convention: "it is claimed the evidence will show the Commission took a pro-active decision on what evidence was or was not included in the Commission’s evidence bundle. Any failure to obtain or the apparent suppression of the relevant evidence lays squarely with the Commission." 

A hearing will be held between the GFSC and Mr Chick to establish the next steps the two parties will need to take.