Correspondence regarding Israel and Gaza (2) (FOI)

​​​Request

Please provide copies of all emails, internal and external, sent to and from Deputy Ian Grost, Deputy Kristina Moore and Deputy David Warr from 1 February 2024 to 26 February 2024 relating to Gaza and or mentioning Israel.

Response

Email searches were performed using the auditable email archive service of the Government of Jersey on the account of Deputy Gorst.

The keywords utilised within the searches were “Gaza” and “Israel”.   

All emails were reviewed and those in scope are attached. 

Correspondence - _Redacted.pdf

​Correspondence has been withheld in accordance with Articles 28 and 35 of the Freedom of Information Jersey Law (2011). 

Some information has been redacted in accordance with Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

As States Members are not Scheduled Public Authorities, they are therefore not subject to Freedom of Information legislation. Correspondence during the stated period sent to and from the email accounts of Deputy Kristina Moore and Deputy David Warr is therefore not eligible for release. 

​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 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.

Article 28 -States Assembly privileges

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if exemption from the obligation to disclose it under this Law is required to avoid an infringement of the privileges of the States Assembly.

(2) Except as provided by paragraph (3), a certificate signed by the Greffier of the States certifying that exemption is required to avoid an infringement of the privileges of the States Assembly is conclusive evidence of that fact.

(3) A person aggrieved by the decision of the Greffier of the States to issue a certificate under paragraph (2) may appeal to the Royal Court on the grounds that the Greffier did not have reasonable grounds for issuing the certificate.

(4) The decision of the Royal Court on the appeal shall be final.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority. Article 35 is a qualified exemption, which means that a public interest test has to be undertaken to examine the circumstances of the case and decide whether, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.  

Although there is a need for transparency, accountability, financial and good decision making by public authorities this information relates to decision making on a proposed policy amendment.  The Scheduled Public Authority, and indeed good government, requires Ministers to be provided with full, frank advice from officials about the possible impact of proposed policy, and for Ministers and officials to be able to discuss those proposed policies in a comprehensive way.

The following considerations were taken into account:

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

• disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public.
• disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:

• in order to best develop policy, Officers and Ministers need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place. The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy. Sharing views is important to ensure that all relevant considerations are taken into account in developing and implementing policy. Disclosure at a time when these views are still being considered would negatively impact the Department's ability to fully consider the information
• the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy
• release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate in areas where future options have yet to be finalised. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately
• disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback in future. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider Departmental business.

Taking into account the various factors, the Scheduled Public Authority decided in favour of withholding the information.​