Halsbury's Laws of England > Commonwealth (Volume 13 (2021)) > 3. Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories > (2) Crown Dependencies > (i) The Channel Islands
(2) Crown Dependencies
(i) The
Channel Islands
694. Constitutional
status of Jersey and Guernsey.
Jersey
and Guernsey, collectively known as the Channel Islands, occupy an anomalous
position, for they are neither parts of the United Kingdom[1]
nor were they categorised as colonies[2].
Together with the Isle of Man[3],
Jersey and Guernsey form the British Crown Dependencies, which are distinct
from the British overseas territories. The term British Islands means the
United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Citizens of the
Channel Islands are British citizens[4].
In respect of Jersey and Guernsey, the Crown acts through His Majesty's Privy
Council, on the recommendation of ministers of the United Kingdom government in
their capacity as Privy Councillors[5].
The
United Kingdom government is internationally responsible for the international
relations of the Channel Islands[6].
The English common law is not binding precedent in the courts of the Channel
Islands, though it may be cited as persuasive authority in some fields of law[7].
In other contexts, notably property, the law is based on the Grand Coutumier de
Normandie compiled across the Duchy of Normandy in the thirteenth century[8],
very largely changed by local customs[9]
as well as by local legislation. However the
prerogative writ of habeas corpus runs to the islands[10].
[1] Jersey Fishermen's Association v States of Guernsey [2007] UKPC 30, [2008] 1 LRC 198, [2007] All ER (D) 39 (May); and see Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose [1962] 1 All ER 97, [1962] 1 WLR 173, CA (Channel Islands not within meaning of 'United Kingdom' in insurance policy); R v Pender (19 May 1969, unreported), Winchester Assizes, cited in R v Doot [1973] QB 73, [1972] 2 All ER 1046, CA (Channel Islands are 'abroad' for purposes of jurisdiction of English courts); Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd (No 2) [1987] 3 All ER 986, [1987] 1 WLR 1597 (Channel Islands 'beyond the seas' for the purposes of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 s 8(2) (repealed); revsd (1988) Financial Times, 10 June, CA); contrast Stoneham v Ocean, Railway and General Accident Insurance Co (1887) 19 QBD 237.
[2] See the Interpretation Act 1978 s 5, Sch 1, definitions of 'British Islands' and 'colony'. See also the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 s 1; the British Nationality Act 1948 s 33(1) (amended by the British Nationality Act 1981 Sch 9). They are, however, 'British possessions': Interpretation Act 1978 Sch 1. A constitutional history of the Channel Islands is set out in R (on the application of Barclay) v Lord Chancellor (No 2) [2014] UKSC 54, [2015] AC 276, [2015] 1 All ER 429. As to the relationship between the United Kingdom and crown dependencies see also House of Commons Justice Committee: Crown Dependencies, Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 (HC 56-1, 30 March 2010); Government Response to the Justice Select Committee's Report: Crown Dependencies (November 2010); House of Commons Justice Committee: Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010, Tenth Report of Session 2013–14, dated 10 December 2013 (HC 726); and the Government Response to the Justice Select Committee's Report 'Crown Dependencies: Developments since 2010' (Cm 8837, 17 March 2014).
[3] Interpretation Act 1978 Sch 1
[4] British
Nationality Act 1981 ss 1, 11, 50(1) (s 1 amended by the Adoption
(Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 s 7; the British Overseas
Territories Act 2002 s 5, Sch 1 para 1; the Adoption and Children Act 2002
ss 137(3), (4), 139(3), Sch 5; the Borders,
Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 s 42; and SI 2021/743). In view of the exceptional constitutional relationship
between Jersey and the United Kingdom, a complaint that the lack of any right
of a Jersey resident to vote in elections for the United Kingdom Parliament is
a breach of art 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950; TS 71 (1953); Cmd 8969) (free elections)is
manifestly ill-founded: Application 8873/80 X v United Kingdom 28 DR 99 (1982), EComHR. See also R
(on the application of Barclay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKSC 9 at [9]–[10], [2010] 1 AC 464, [2010] 3 LRC 702.
[5] All Acts and Petitions from the Islands are referred to the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey: General Order of Reference, Order in Council dated 22 February 1952. Such General Orders of Reference are ordinarily made at the beginning of each reign. The Secretary of State for Justice is the Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Channel Islands. As to the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Islands see Jersey Fishermen's Association v States of Guernsey [2007] UKPC 30, [2008] 1 LRC 198, [2007] All ER (D) 39 (May); the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–1973 (Cmnd 5460) (1973) at Pt XI, especially paras 1361–1363; and see also the submission of the United Kingdom government in Application 8873/80 X v United Kingdom 28 DR 99 (1982), EComHR.
[6] Hotchkiss v Channel Islands Knitwear (unreported) 2001/207 (Jersey CA) (Carey, Bailiff of Guernsey). The preamble to the States of Jersey Law 2005 (L 8/2005) (Jersey), approved by the Privy Council, recites that it is recognised that Jersey has autonomous capacity in domestic affairs and that there is an increasing need for Jersey to participate in matters of international affairs.
[7] See De La Haye v Attorney General 2010 JLR 17 para 79 (Sumption JA in the Jersey CA).
[8] Jersey Fishermen's Association v States of Guernsey [2007] UKPC 30 at [30], 2008] 1 LRC 198, [2007] All ER (D) 39 (May). In relation to Guernsey, the basic form of customary law is comprised of those elements of the Grand Coutumier that were approved by Order in Council dated 27 October 1583 and known as L'Approbation des Lois
[9] As to the nature of this customary law as the common law (of the island in question) see Snell v Beadle [2001] UKPC 5, [2001] 2 AC 304; Janvrin v De La Mare (1861) 14 Moo PCC 334. It was not legitimate to introduce English feudal practice on the theory that Channel Islands feudalism was of the same type (A-G v Symonds (1830) 1 Knapp 390); and it is clear that the common law of real property is inapplicable (De Carteret v Baudains (1886) 11 App Cas 214, PC).
[10] Anon (1681) 1 Vent 357; R v Overton (1668) 1 Sid 386; R v Salmon (1669) 2 Keb 450; R v Cowle (1759) 2 Burr 834 at 856; Dodd's Case (1858) 2 De G & J 510; Ex p Anderson (1861) 3 E & E 487 at 494; Le Cras Laws of Jersey17 et seq.