Salary and package for Director of Financial Crime (FOI)

​Request

​Hello, I would like to know the full salary and remuneration package for [name redacted], Director of Financial Crime Strategy at the government of Jersey.

Response

The Government of Jersey does not comment on individual contractual matters as this is personal information and would breach the privacy of the individuals concerned. Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

Article 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 2005.

(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 2005; and

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

Internal Review Request 

I would like to appeal this decision on grounds of public interest and I would remind the government that Information Commissioner Jay Fedorak concluded that it was “in the public interest” for Charlie Parker’s contractual terms to be laid bare for public scrutiny when this was appealed. 

Mr Fedorak described concluded that releasing the information was vital as “ it relates to the expenditure of public funds and to a matter of recent public discussion concerning a senior public official.”

He said it was important for both Mr Parker to be able to be held to account, as well as the States officials with whom he had negotiated his contract.

Internal Review Response 

An Internal review was completed by two officials of appropriate seniority who have not been involved in the original decision. 

They were asked to consider:  

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. 

If yes, then the Panel reviewed. 

i) Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii) Was the information supplied appropriately 

iii) Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied. 

The original response has been reviewed and assessed to identify whether the application of Article 25 (Meaning of “personal information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 had been applied correctly. 

The Panel, having considered all aspects of this case as detailed below. 

This information was considered as personal negotiation and therefore the use of the article was deemed to be appropriate in this instance. Due to this conclusion, it was agreed that the use of Article 25 was appropriate. 

Further conversation was also had about the potential use of Article 39, especially in light of the fact that George Pearmain had left Government of Jersey and therefore the details of his employment contract may be used as a bargaining tool by any applicant for the role.  On this occasion it was concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Article 25 was valid and therefore no additional Article was necessary. 

It was therefore agreed that the Internal Review response to the applicant would be that the original response be upheld, however a further explanation using some of the narrative above would be included as to why the article applied.  

Further narrative:

It was discussed that Chief Officers and Accountable Officers Salary details were disclosed in the Annual Report and Accounts. George Pearmain was neither of the above. 

Although salary information for Civil Servants grades 1-15 is disclosed when roles are advertised, it was discussed that George Pearmain may have negotiated the individual terms of his employment and salary supporting further the use of Article 25.