Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 13 April 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-C-2012-0035
Decision Summary Title :	Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Decision Summary:	13th April 2012
Decision Summary Author:	International Relations		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Written Report:	13th April 2012
Written Report Author:	Law Officers Department		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-
Decision(s): The Chief Minister decided to lodge the draft Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- together with an accompanying Report.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 2012 came into force on 13th January 2012. The Law provides for the giving of directions in response to threats to the interests of Jersey relating to money laundering, terrorist financing or weapons development and for incidental purposes. Article 10 of the 2012 Law enables any person aggrieved by a decision of the Chief Minister under the Law to apply to the Royal Court to have the decision set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. It is proposed that a new Article is substituted for Article 10, requiring that any application made to the Royal Court pursuant to that provision will be determined by applying the principles applicable in judicial review proceedings. The amendment would enable an applicant to rely on the usual substantive grounds for judicial review, rather than being limited to relying on the ground that the decision was unreasonable. The proposed amendment would provide the Royal Court with the same powers of determination as those of the English High Court when it reviews equivalent decisions made under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 of the United Kingdom. The proposed amendment would also bring Article 10 of the 2012 Law into line with Article 29 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 2011.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications arising from the Proposition.
Action required: Once signed the statement of Human Rights Compatibility and request that the draft Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- is to be lodged with the States Assembly at the earliest possible convenience together with the accompanying Report. The Chief Minister’s Department shall forward the attached statement of Human Rights Compatibility, the draft Law and Report to the States Greffe.
Signature:		Position: Senator I.J. Gorst, Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-

Jersey Crest

Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-

Report

The Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 2012 (the “2012 Law”) was adopted by the States of Jersey on 1st November 2011. It was registered by the Royal Court on 6th January 2012 and came into force on 13th January 2012.

The 2012 Law provides for the giving of directions in response to threats to the interests of Jersey relating to money laundering, terrorist financing or weapons development and for incidental purposes.

Article 10 of the 2012 Law enables any person aggrieved by a decision of the Chief Minister under that Law to apply to the Royal Court to have the decision set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. A decision of the Chief Minister that may be subject to an application under Article 10 of the 2012 Law may have been based wholly or partly on closed source material, disclosed to the Chief Minister by Her Majesty’s Treasury. Closed source material is intelligence that is withheld from an applicant on public interest grounds.

It is proposed that Article 10 is replaced with a new Article requiring that any application made to the Royal Court pursuant to that provision will be determined by applying the principles applicable in judicial review proceedings. The amendment would enable an applicant to rely on the usual substantive grounds for judicial review, rather than being limited to relying on the ground that the decision was unreasonable.

The proposed amendment would provide the Royal Court with the same powers of determination as those of the English High Court when it reviews equivalent decisions made under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 of the United Kingdom.

The proposed amendment would also bring Article 10 of the 2012 Law into line with Article 29 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Jersey) Law 2011 (the “2011 Law”), which governs applications for the review of decisions of the Chief Minister made in pursuance of the 2011 Law, which may have been based wholly or partly on closed source material.

Proceedings brought under Article 29 of the 2011 Law are governed by Rules 16A/4-17 of the Royal Court Rules 2004, which provide for special counsel proceedings where closed source material is relied on by the Chief Minister. It was intended that proceedings brought under Article 10 of the 2012 Law would be governed by the same Rules. The proposed amendment is necessary before an amendment can be made to the Royal Court Rules 2004 to provide that proceedings brought under Article 10 of the 2012 Law are also to be governed by Rules 16A/4-17.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications attached to implementing this Proposition.

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 requires the Minister in charge of a Projet de Loi to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Projet with the Convention Rights (as defined by Article 1 of the Law). On [DATE] 2012 the Chief Minister made the following statement before Second Reading of this Projet in the States Assembly –

In the view of the Chief Minister the provisions of the Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- are compatible with the Convention Rights.

Explanatory Note

This Law amends the Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201- (“Law”) in relation to an application to set aside a decision of the Chief Minister relating to the giving of a direction or the grant of a licence under the Law. Directions may be given under the Law when certain conditions relating to the risk of money laundering or weapons development are met. Licences may be granted under the Law to exempt certain transactions or types of transaction from the requirements of a direction. An application may be made under the Law to set aside the Chief Minister’s decision on the ground that it is “unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case”. This amending Law would remove that ground and, instead, require the Royal Court to apply the principles of judicial review in determining whether a decision should be set aside.

This amending Law would come into force 7 days after it is registered.

Jersey Crest

Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201-

A LAW to amend further the Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201-.

Adopted by the States [date to be inserted]

Sanctioned by Order of Her Majesty in Council [date to be inserted]

Registered by the Royal Court [date to be inserted]

THE STATES, subject to the sanction of Her Most Excellent Majesty in Council, have adopted the following Law –

1 Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201- amended

For Article 10 of the Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Jersey) Law 201- there shall be substituted the following Article –

“10 Applications in relation to a direction or licence

(1) Subject to Article 11, any person affected by a decision of the Minister under this Law may apply to the Court to set aside the Minister’s decision.

(2) In determining whether the decision should be set aside, the Court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(3) If the Court decides that the decision should be set aside it may make any such order, or give any such relief, as may be made or given in proceedings for judicial review.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), if the Court sets aside the Minister’s decision to give a direction (including amending a direction) it must –

(a) quash the direction if given by notice; or

(b) direct the Minister to revoke the relevant Order forthwith, if the direction is given by Order.

(5) This Article does not apply to any decision of the Minister to make an Order under Article 4.”.

2 Citation and commencement

This Law may be cited as the Money Laundering and Weapons Development (Directions) (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 201- and shall come into force 7 days after it is registered.