Finding information about Guernsey Jurats isn’t hard; it’s just hard to understand the information found. I did, however, find a rather amusing observation—borrowed, of all places, from a Jersey article—that read: “Guernsey’s Jurats remind one legal philosopher of that ‘rare species of turtle that survives on just one of the Galapagos Islands’”.
Before we understand this legal philosopher’s turtle, we must understand its habitat. Guernsey has no jury system, no lay magistrates, no sentencing guidelines and no sentencing council. Instead, it has Jurats: lay people, elected by the States of Election.
Jurats sit in both civil and criminal proceedings and are selected “only from well-respected members of the community”. They do not interpret or declare the law—that task belongs exclusively to the Judge—but they do take part in deciding outcomes. Jurat decisions are reached by a simple majority.
Jurats are often described as “judging questions of fact”. In legal terms, this means resolving disputed issues of fact by deciding what happened based upon the evidence seen, heard and read. The Court does not claim to be able to determine the objective “truth” of what actually happened, as if it has some sort of preternatural sense. It does its best based upon the evidence presented to it, which is itself often imperfect (for example, determining what a person intended by their actions; a very important issue with more serious alleged crimes).
There are different standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. In a civil case, the claimant must prove their case on the “balance of probabilities.” In other words, that something is more likely to have happened than not. In a criminal case, the prosecution, undertaken by the Law Officers of the Crown, must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must satisfy the Jurats so that they are certain—which is a significantly higher hurdle. Rightly so, given that one’s liberty is at stake.
Most civil matters (that is, anything that is not criminal) concerning Jurats are heard before the Royal Court sitting as the “Ordinary Court”. This consists of the Bailiff and a minimum of two, but usually three, Jurats. On some occasions the Royal Court sits as the “Full Court,” comprising the Bailiff and at least seven Jurats. Whether a matter is heard by the Ordinary Court or the Full Court generally depends on the requirements of the relevant law.
The Royal Court also acts an appellate court, and in doing so sits as the “Court of Appeal.”
In criminal matters, trials heard in the Royal Court are similar to those heard in the Magistrate’s Court, save for the composition and functioning of the tribunal itself: the Royal Court comprises in this instance the Bailiff (or his Deputy or Lieutenant) and at least seven Jurats.
As in England and Wales, during both civil and criminal trials, Guernsey Judges preside over proceedings, direct the court on the law, and rule on matters of procedure. In all cases, the Judge is the sole adjudicator of law.
Locally, both Judge and Jurat may pose questions to a witness; the latter not bound by strict procedural constraints as jurors across the Channel. Anyone attending local proceedings likely has witnessed a Jurat whisper to the Judge or hand them a written note in order to question the attester. In fact, with the permission of a rather pragmatic Judge, I once saw a Jurat simply question the witness orally; far more efficient than repeatedly scribbling on scraps of paper and then passing them along the abnormally long bench to the Judge, like a game of Pass the Parcel.
The way Jurats communicate their conclusions differs between criminal and civil proceedings. In criminal cases, after consultation, the senior Jurat announces the Jurats’ finding in open court—whether the accused is guilty, not guilty, or, where applicable, insane. The senior Jurat also states whether the decision was unanimous and, if not, how the votes were divided. After a guilty verdict (or plea) and following any pleas of mitigation Judge and Jurats confer privately, the former directing the latter on issues relevant to sentencing in order to decide on a punishment, unless the punishment is fixed by law.
In civil cases, Judge and Jurats retire with the former once again directing the latter on the law. After the Jurats have reached a decision the Judge drafts a “reasoned judgement” and returns to the Court, with the Jurats, to declare their decision and state the appropriate reasoning.
If the Jurats are equally divided—a situation analogous to a hung jury—the Bailiff has a casting vote. For this reason, the number of Jurats sitting is usually the lowest uneven number above the required quorum.
Although Jurats are not paid a salary, the group of sixteen split a pot of fees collected throughout property contract court at the end of the year. It was revealed that, between 2019 and 2022, the total amount collected for distribution was somewhere between £200,000 and £228,000 each year: between £12,500 and £14,250 per jurat over the four-year period.
The Jurats have numerous other duties conferred upon them by statute and have a number of other functions. Like, for example, supervising the destruction of Guernsey currency notes. And, as members of the Royal Court, they are present at certain ceremonial occasions, including Liberation Day and Remembrance Day. On such occasions, and while sitting on the Bench, they are garbed in their distinctive pink (some say purple) and black robes, complete with an official toque (hat), wing collars and bands.
For bibliophiles and bookworms, further information about the Royal Court and the roles of the Bailiff and Jurats can be found in the ‘Royal Court of Guernsey (Miscellaneous Reform Provisions) Law 1950’.
Like the rare Galapagos turtle, Jurats may appear unusual—eccentric even—to outside observers. Yet they have endured not by accident, but because they remain central to how justice has evolved in Guernsey today.