Select a region
There are already suitable rules around the disclosure of serious criminal convictions during elections and requiring candidates to undergo police checks is undeliverable, unreasonable and costly, a committee has argued.
One deputy who pushed for candidate eligibility to be tightened up has said the lack of proposals shows a lack of a “can-do” attitude from the States Assembly & Constitution Committee.
The Committee attempted to liberalise candidacy requirements at the start of this year, based on independent election observers who made recommendations following the first island wide election in 2020, but deputies were largely critical and sent it back to the drawing board to toughen up on future candidates.
It had sought to allow more convicts to stand for office, but deputies backed an amendment that maintained the status quo of disallowing anyone with a sentence of at least sixth months imprisonment within the five years before polling day, as well as closing a loophole preventing those unlawfully out of prison from standing either.
Months of investigations have been carried out looking into whether Guernsey candidates should have to declare any criminal conviction from anywhere in the world, and consulting with public bodies to see if people can and should undergo a police check to be nominated for public office.
But SACC has said the current rules requiring the declaration of some convictions are “both suitable and sufficient” while it considers a requirement for police checks to be “undeliverable” before the 2025 election and said it may put off candidates with only minor criminal records.
It said the current requirements make it “highly unlikely” that serious offences, such as murder, those with imprisonment periods over two and a half years, or any sexual offences wouldn't already be legally required to be declared as they wouldn't be considered spent convictions spent under local rehabilitation laws.
However, SACC said it was committed to improving public accessibility of criminal conviction declaration during the election period to improve transparency.
Pictured: The next election is in June 2025.
Following research, the Committee also found that similar requirements haven’t been deemed suitable in the UK, and to apply the change locally would require a change of UK law which it said is unlikely and would take time.
“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,” the policy letter states.
“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 for checks, which can take up to eight weeks to be returned, could put off candidates who decide to stand at the last minute, and with it unclear who would request or check the records since politicians are considered self-employed, it would add to the complexity and possibly delay the “entire electoral process”, it added.
“Should candidates wish to undergo a DBS check and signpost this as part of their campaign material for an extra layer of transparency, they are of course welcome to do so, so long as the cost is rightfully recorded as a campaign expense.”
Pictured: Deputy Tina Bury was disappointed with the Committee's research.
Independent election observers noted in 2020 that excluding everyone with previous prison sentences without considered the nature of the crime is “unreasonable”.
SACC also found that requiring crimes committed in other jurisdictions that aren't considered crimes locally would be unfair, especially if those convictions had been made in rogue or authoritarian states.
“There is some concern that requiring candidates to declare foreign convictions that are not recognised as crimes domestically has the potential to result in unfair bias against candidates, and to cause disputes if candidates feel they have been unfairly judged and may have been unsuccessful as a result,” it said.
“It is recommended by the Committee that the current provision be retained to ensure candidates are only assessed based on Guernsey’s legal standards and expectations.
“Utilising the bars of severity set by the justice system which determine what does and does not warrant imprisonment, to further determine what does and does not need to be declared by candidates, is a way of drawing the lines in what is a very contentious matter and avoids mandating the disclosure of minor offences which could deter suitable and capable candidates from standing.
“It should also be acknowledged that these eligibility criteria were agreed by the Assembly in January of this year, and they are the agreed primary safeguard which prevents individuals who have either been served custodial sentences of six months or more in the last five years or are still serving a custodial sentence of a year or more, from standing.”
Deputy Tina Bury, who led the charge for police checks to be investigated, criticised the work of SACC saying it goes against public opinion – an argument she made in the States earlier this year.
“Despite strong support for DBS checks in the States debate and a strength of feeling from the public – voters - that this should be in place, I was disappointed that the briefing paper appeared to focus on reasons why this couldn’t be done, rather than explore how it could be done,” she said.
“In light of the strength of support and to assist the electorate with informed decision making, I would like to have seen more of a ‘can do’ approach.”
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.