The Royal Court has instructed the Constable of St John to resign, after ruling that he is not fit for public office.

It's after Chris Taylor, who has been the father of the parish since 2014, publicly disagreed with the decision of the Magistrate's Court to find him guilty of dangerous driving, and used parish funds to pay his legal fees.

He was convicted last year for driving at low speed into the legs of a racing marshal. He was banned from driving for 18 months and fined £4,000.

He then resigned as Assistant Chief Minister, but stayed on as a States member.

It was then revealed that more than £7,000 of ratepayers money was spent relating to his conviction. That money has since been paid back.

On the day of the Royal Court hearing last month, Constable Taylor said to a journalist that he is 'an innocent man who has been convicted of a crime he did not commit'. 

In his oath of office, the Constable promised to ensure the Queen’s peace is kept. The court said he has a duty to uphold the rule of law - and it's very hard to see how expressing his private views to the media sits comfortably with his public obligations.

The judgement went on to say that the public would wonder how a court could possibly conclude that he was fit for office, given the Magistrate's Court heard his evidence on oath and didn't believe it, and then continued to deny what the court had proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Commissioner Sir William Bailhache said therefore, with sadness that his years of valuable service to his parish should come to an end in such a way, that he should resign.

"Subject to any further order, the Attorney General should apply to the Court as soon as convenient in order that dates for a nomination meeting and a fresh election can be set. Until the person who is elected takes oath before the Court, the Connétable continues in office pursuant to Article 1(3) of the 2008 Law."

On the legal fees, Constable Taylor said he was on parish business and so the parish's insurance cover would be available to his defence.

However, the Court said he should have realised that that was not a given and if there were any problems, the parish would be at risk of paying out ratepayers’ money on his personal defence to criminal proceedings.

"At some point – it is unclear exactly when, but presumably not until early to mid-March when the Connétable first brought a cheque to the Third Respondent  (Proceurer Michel Larose) to sign in respect of the lawyers’ initial bill – the Connétable gave some form of undertaking to the Procureurs that he would reimburse the parish for the amount of the fees if the insurers did not. This was an important undertaking. It was all very well for the Procureurs to trust the Connétable, but matters as important as using parish money to give a potential financial advantage to a parish official, especially the Connétable, are too important to be left in that way. The Connétable should have realised this and not put the Procureurs in that position. He should have volunteered the undertaking in writing so as to ensure there was no difficulty about it."

Words of advice have been given to procurers Stephen Hewlett and Michel Larose, after they were found to have fallen short of their oath of office 'in some respects'.

Constable Taylor was asked to retire from a meeting while an entry into the accounts affecting him was discussed, which Mr Hewlett objected to. The court ruled that was an error.

"Although the evidence was that the Connétable left the meeting willingly, it is obvious that the Connétable should have retired from the room without the issue becoming contentious. It is no different from the provision in Article 37(4)(c) of the Rates (Jersey) Law 2005 which requires a member of the Rate Assessment Committee to withdraw when land in which he is personally interested is discussed."

It was also ruled that both procurers should have questioned whether it was right to ask the insurers to meet the defence costs - and that they were wrong not to have got undertaking in writing from the Constable that he would 'discharge any shortfall in respect of the insurers’ contribution to his defence costs'

"In the circumstances they should have accepted Mr Crocker’s suggestion that the draft accounts be amended and/or the suggestion of the auditor that the Assembly be adjourned so that the revised accounts could be approved for later consideration. As a result of their failure to do so, the Assembly was presented with, and we understand approved, accounts which were incorrect because the expenditure on legal fees was not recorded as a loan to the Connétable, and instead shown as an expense of the Parish."

Channel 103 has contacted Constable Taylor, the Parish of St John, Government of Jersey, and the chair of the Comite des Connetables for comment.

The latter, Constable Deidre Mezbourian, says she would be pleased to comment 'when the judgement has been published, and I have had the opportunity to consider it'.