The St Pier Suspension: A Democratic Failure?

An uninvolved deputy spent two and a half hours reading material about this case and asked me to examine it, as well. It was, in their words, ‘chilling to democracy’. I did so, constructed a timeline (for it is usually the chronology that discloses reality), and this article was born.

My personal philosophy differs from Deputy St. Pier’s; I favour minimal government, whereas his position is perhaps more interventionist. Yet political alignment is irrelevant here. 

I’m also a member of The People’s Trust, which is an apolitical entity, focused on transparent governance and assisting islanders failed by institutions – we see multiple cases of misconduct every week. Accordingly, our interest was piqued by this case. 

The investigation deployed tactics we have documented repeatedly: refusing inconvenient witnesses, predetermined conclusions, and selective rule application. Deputy St. Pier is capable of defending himself; what matters here is whether flawed processes can be used to punish any deputy for representing constituents. That precedent affects every islander.

The Facts

Deputy Gavin St Pier faces 25 days’ suspension following a ‘ninety-second’ phone call from a Guardian journalist in November 2024. 

In early 2025, Dr Sandie Bohin complained that Deputy St Pier had breached the Code of Conduct by facilitating the provision of confidential information to a Guardian journalist. The Commissioner for Standards found he had breached the Code by confirming information to the journalist without appropriate disclaimers. This finding was reached despite evidence from multiple sources contradicting the allegation. The Committee for Health and Social Care investigated a related complaint and found Deputy St Pier was not the source of the information. His wife Jane St Pier wrote to the Commissioner confirming she had provided the information with the families’ permission, but explicitly stated she did so ‘without the encouragement or involvement of my husband‘. She offered to be interviewed. 

The Commissioner refused to interview Jane St Pier. Deputy St Pier had sought the Commissioner’s permission on 23 June 2025 to discuss the complaint with his wife, as required by the Code’s confidentiality provisions. The Commissioner granted permission. Jane immediately provided a letter dated 25 June 2025 and offered to be interviewed.

The Commissioner declined, stating in her 8 July letter that the interview was ‘not necessary‘ because ‘there has been ample opportunity throughout this process for all relevant evidence to be submitted‘. Yet Jane could not have submitted evidence earlier; she was unaware of the investigation due to its confidential nature and her husband’s obligation not to discuss it without permission.

The Appeals Commissioner, reviewing this decision, characterised the Commissioner’s reasoning as finding the interview ‘would have been inconsequential to her findings as she had already determined that she could not independently corroborate with the reporter whether her husband Deputy St Pier had had any involvement‘.

The Medical Specialist Group had received similar findings from HSC. HSC wrote to them: ‘Finally, as noted at the outset the Committee notes that since the original complaint was made the MSG has received new information that indicates that Deputy St Pier was not the source of the information shared with the Guardian. The Committee is therefore extremely disappointed that the MSG has not withdrawn the original complaint.‘

MSG refused to withdraw.

The Commissioner acknowledged receiving HSC’s letter but stated she ‘had not taken any of the issues raised into account‘. She then excluded it from the bundle of evidence provided to the Appeals Commissioner.

Three parties now knew facts that contradicted the complaint: HSC had investigated and found Deputy St Pier was not the source; Jane St Pier had confirmed she provided the information without her husband’s encouragement or involvement; MSG had been officially informed by HSC that Deputy St Pier was not the source. Yet MSG maintained the complaint, the Commissioner proceeded with the investigation, and the Appeals Commissioner declined to examine the underlying merit.

The machinery ground on, impervious to evidence, towards a predetermined conclusion.

Who Was the Source?

This treatment of Jane St Pier is concerning as it suggests that wives lose independent civic agency through marriage. Jane coordinated the Families Group as an autonomous citizen. She obtained the families’ permission to share their concerns. She contacted the journalist independently. Yet the Commissioner treated Jane’s autonomous actions as evidence of her husband’s involvement, refusing to interview her because the conclusion about Gavin was ‘already determined‘.

In the Commissioner’s reasoning, Jane ceased to exist as an independent actor. Her explicit statement that she acted ‘without the encouragement or involvement of my husband‘ was dismissed without examination. Marriage apparently converted her from a citizen to an extension of a spouse.

I understand that Deputies voting on Wednesday will be aware of additional information about other sources of information provided to the Guardian. The Commissioner did not seek to identify or interview all potential sources before reaching her conclusion.

Background 

To date, around thirty families and healthcare professionals have approached Deputy St Pier with concerns about secondary healthcare. Many of these concerns allegedly involved the same doctor. Between 2016 and 2023, three separate investigations examined complaints about paediatric care. Each one found problems:

• ICPC (2016): Led to a letter giving “unequivocal apology” for “shortcomings” following investigation of the St Pier family complaint
• SEW Limited (2021): Investigated four families’ complaints and identified systemic issues, including professional bias against families seeking second opinions; breakdown of trust between clinicians and families; and approaches that contributed to relationship deterioration rather than resolution. The report made twelve recommendations for fundamental reform. Found ‘fixed thinking‘, professionals who ‘alienated families‘
• RCPCH (2023): Found symptoms not ‘fully assessed’, communication ‘abrupt’ and ‘lacking empathy’

These complaints were non-vexatious; the authorities found genuine problems that required change. Altogether, the investigations made a total of thirty-six recommendations for improvement. 

Who Owns Confidentiality?

The Commissioner found Deputy St Pier had breached confidentiality under Section 24 of the Code. Paragraph 45 of her report states he ‘would have required the consent of the families (which he says he had) but also the consent of Dr Bohin (which he did not have)’.

The families owned their complaints. These were their personal experiences with healthcare services. They consented to their elected representative sharing that information in the public interest. The Commissioner acknowledged this right existed, then added a second requirement: the person complained about must also consent.

This grants subjects of complaints veto power over the disclosure of concerns about them. If I complain about my doctor’s treatment, my doctor can suppress that complaint by refusing permission. This makes subjects judges in their own cause because they control whether concerns about their own conduct can be discussed. Applied generally, no constituent could authorise their deputy to raise concerns about any professional without that professional’s agreement.

Complaints belong to complainants, not to those complained about. When patients authorise disclosure of their experiences, that professional has no legal interest requiring protection. The confidentiality was the patients’ to waive, and they waived it.

Section 24 explicitly allows disclosure when ‘it is both lawful and clearly in the wider public interest to do so‘. Concerns about paediatric care affecting multiple families clearly qualify. The Commissioner never addressed this exception.

The complaint alleged Deputy St Pier ‘facilitated provision of‘ information – an allegation impossible to disprove. How does one prove they didn’t encourage their spouse in private conversations at home? The burden of proof was inverted. Yet the Commissioner sanctioned him for ‘confirming’ information without disclaimers – something different entirely. He defended against an unprovable allegation but was convicted of an act he never had proper notice to defend against.

These are three distinct things: facilitating provision ≠ providing ≠ confirming.

The ‘Unsubstantiated’ Catch-22

The Commissioner called the complaints ‘misleading’ because they were not ‘formally examined or upheld’. This creates an impossible position.

If deputies can only discuss formally investigated complaints, constituents approaching them get no help because no investigation exists yet. But investigations do not start spontaneously. Someone must raise concerns first. If deputies cannot raise concerns until after the investigation, who triggers the investigation?

The Commissioner’s logic means no investigation can ever start. This silences elected representatives and leaves the public with no avenue for redress.

By November 2024, 26 families and professionals had approached Deputy St Pier. The SEW investigation formally examined four of these families’ experiences and identified serious systemic problems requiring 12 recommendations for reform. All three investigations consistently found serious problems requiring 36 recommendations in total.

When complaints were investigated, problems were found. The logical inference would be that fuller investigation might reveal more problems, not that uninvestigated complaints are false. Yet the Commissioner dismissed all 26 complaints as ‘unsubstantiated’ and inverted this reality.

The Pattern

In 2015, Deputy St Pier’s daughter was misdiagnosed. The family complained about clinical care; a safeguarding investigation followed. Three other families experienced the same pattern. All were ultimately cleared. The SEW investigation found professional bias against families seeking second opinions. The report identified this as part of a wider pattern requiring systemic change.

No Guardian article was published. No public harm occurred. Yet Deputy St Pier faces suspension for confirming information in a phone call about matters that never reached the public.

Failed Appeal and No Remedy

The Appeals Commissioner dismissed three of four grounds without examining whether the complaint had merit. He reduced the suspension from 30 to 25 days on proportionality grounds. But proportionality to what? To harm that never occurred?

He stated the Commissioner has discretion over evidence ‘weight’. This assumes evidence was properly gathered. When the Commissioner refuses to interview the claimed source, excludes documentary proof showing Deputy St. Pier was not the source, and ignores the Code’s explicit public interest exception, there is no legitimate weighing to review.

The States of Deliberation is the final decision-making body. No judicial review or court appeal exists after your vote. Article 6 of the European Convention guarantees a fair hearing before an independent tribunal for civil rights. Professional reputation and holding office are civil rights. Politicians voting on sanctions against a colleague, with no judicial remedy available, cannot satisfy Article 6.

Every deputy could face this process with no recourse beyond political judgment. When the States become judge, jury and final arbiter without judicial oversight, fundamental protections evaporate.

SACC’s Silence

The States’ Assembly & Constitution Committee saw all the documents. They knew the Commissioner refused to interview Jane St Pier, who claimed to be the source. They knew MSG received evidence that Deputy St Pier was not the source, yet refused to withdraw. They knew HSC’s letter was excluded from the bundle. They knew the Commissioner stated she ‘had not taken any of the issues raised into account‘.

SACC transmitted this without comment, claiming their role is ‘procedural’. When a committee sees documented evidence contradicting a complaint yet transmits sanctions anyway, neutrality surely becomes negligence. Transmitting injustice without warning makes them participants, not messengers.

Questions for Deputies

1. Can you sanction someone when MSG received evidence confirming he was not the source, yet maintained the complaint?
2. Should investigations proceed when complainants maintain allegations after being officially informed of contradictory findings?
3. Is refusing to interview witnesses claiming to be the actual source acceptable?
4. Should the Code’s explicit public interest exception be ignored?
5. Can married women be treated as extensions of their husbands rather than independent citizens?
6. Do complaints belong to the professionals complained about, requiring their consent for disclosure, rather than to the families who made them?
7. Can representative democracy function if deputies cannot discuss constituent concerns until after a formal investigation, when investigations cannot begin without concerns being raised?
8. Is imposing quasi-judicial sanctions through political voting, with no judicial review available, compatible with human rights?

If you answer no to any of these, you must reject this sanction.

The Precedents

Endorsing this punishment establishes that in Guernsey:

• Exculpatory evidence can be excluded from the record
• Material witnesses need not be interviewed if their testimony might exonerate
• Code exceptions can be ignored when inconvenient
• Spouses lose independent civic agency through marriage
• Complainants can maintain allegations after being officially informed that they are contradicted by evidence
• Complaints belong to those complained about, who must consent before families can discuss their own experiences
• Deputies cannot raise constituents’ concerns until after a formal investigation
• The public has no effective avenue to trigger investigations, given that it is well known that Guernsey’s complaints processes are largely unfit for purpose
• Deputies charged with one thing can be convicted of another
• Deputies have no judicial remedy against Code of Conduct complaints, only political judgment

These precedents will govern how all deputies and their families are treated.

Conclusion

Deputy St Pier confirmed information a journalist already knew in a 90-second call. For this, he faces suspension despite evidence that he was not the source, his wife explicitly stating she acted without his encouragement or involvement, no article being published, and investigations consistently validating the underlying concerns.

Determination in these proceedings should rest on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. The evidence does not support the finding. Yet the Commissioner proceeded to conviction.

Four parties had the power to stop this. The Commissioner had evidence contradicting the complaint. She proceeded anyway. The Appeals Commissioner could have examined the underlying merit. He didn’t. MSG received official findings contradicting their position. They persisted. SACC saw all this evidence. They transmitted it without warning.

Now only you can stop this. Vote to reject this suspension. Not because Deputy St Pier is above scrutiny, but because this process violated every principle of natural justice.

What have we become?