Minutes of Drug Advisory Council meeting April 2006 (FOI)

​Request

Please provide the Minutes of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council's meeting of the 13th April 2006.

Response

The Minutes of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council (MDAC) meeting of April 2006 are attached.

20230413 Part A Minutes_Redacted.pdf

20230413 Part B Minutes_Redacted.pdf​

Redactions have been made to the Minutes in consideration of Freedom of Information legislation to protect the privacy of individuals, respect the constitutional Convention of Law Officer privilege, and to reduce the impact on the security of the island. Redactions have been colour coded for ease of reference, as follows:

Blue    Personal Information of the Chair - Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

Yellow    Personal Information of the Members of the Council and others mentioned within the minutes – Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

Black    Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer – Article 31 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

Red    Law Enforcement – Article 42 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011

Articles Applied

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

Article 31 - Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer

Information is qualified exempt information if it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Article 42 - Law enforcement

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

Public Interest Test

Articles 31 and 42 are qualified exemptions and, as such, Health and Community Services (HCS) has conducted a public interest test as required by law. 

Article 31 of the Freedom of Information Law recognises the constitutional Convention for Government to observe confidentiality in respect of advice provided by Law Officers. The underlying purpose of this confidentiality is to protect fully informed decision making by allowing Government to seek legal advice in private, without concern of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of the advice or the fact that it was sought. It ensures that Government is neither discouraged from seeking advice in appropriate cases, nor pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases. It is considered the importance of protecting the constitutional Law Officer privilege outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information redacted under this exemption.

In respect of Article 42, HCS has assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency. However, having considered the public interest, HCS has concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.​