Senator Gorst's Statement on Ukraine (FOI)

​Request 654634080

In a "Statement on Ukraine" made on 1 March 2022, Senator Ian Gorst announced that he had “instructed officials and agencies to establish an operational taskforce to ensure that all relevant agencies … are coordinated in actively identifying and investigating relevant Russian assets in Jersey.”

It has been confirmed that the instruction was a “verbal direction to officers”.

Operational taskforce instructions (FOI)​

Please can you provide the following information:

1

To which person(s) was the instruction (direction) provided. For all such persons please provide the following information: (a) name; (b) department and/or agency (for example, External Relations, Law Officers’ Department, ECCU, States of Jersey Police etc.); (c) job title.

2

When and how the instruction (direction) was provided to each person referred to at 1. above. For example: on 28 February 2022, in a meeting held at Broad Street at 11am; or, on 1 March 2022, in a telephone conversation.

3

Copies of any notes (whether formal or informal) or other documents (including, without limitation, emails) recording (in whole or in part) the instruction (direction) or any aspect thereof.

Response

In the response to Freedom of Information request linked above issued on 4 October 2024, it was confirmed that no written record of the verbal instruction referenced in question one is held by the Government of Jersey. Therefore, the Government of Jersey does not hold the requested information requested in questions one - three. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Article applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.​

​Internal Review Request

I am writing to request an internal review of the response to freedom of information request reference 654634080.

The Government of Jersey and States of Jersey Police (SOJP) have stated that they do not hold the requested information.

I believe is that it is implausible that there is not a single note (whether formal or informal) or other document (including, without limitation, emails) recording (in whole or in part) the instruction (direction) [to establish the taskforce] or any aspect thereof.

The taskforce was a significant and novel undertaking. It involved the allocation of resources and individuals not only in the External Relations department, but from other agencies. 

The official(s) that Senator Gorst spoke with must have made some note of the conversation; either a direct note of the conversation, or in subsequent correspondence (for example, an email to colleagues along the lines of “The Minister has asked us to set up a taskforce to …”). It stretches credulity to believe that none of the officials that received this important instruction from the Minister made any sort of note of the instruction, or any aspect of it.

It may be that the initial searches for relevant information overlooked the fact that the request related not only to direct notes of the instruction, but also to documents recording any aspect of the instruction. This could include subsequent emails, for example, relating to the set-up of the taskforce and its purpose, in accordance with the Minister’s instruction.

Given that both the Government of Jersey’s response and the SOJP’s response is that no such information is held, I have concerns that adequate searches were not carried out and/or that relevant information has been withheld in circumstances when it should not have been. 

As part of the internal review, amongst other things, please check and confirm whether the Minister and any officials in his department ever use WhatsApp (or similar communications apps) to communicate with each other and, if so, whether those messages have been checked for relevant material.

It is particularly implausible that nobody in the SOJP made any note of the instruction to establish the taskforce. If correct, this would clearly be a matter of concern given that one would expect the SOJP, on receiving instructions from the Minister (or officials on his behalf), to make a detailed note of such instructions; particularly in circumstances where it involved the allocation of SOJP resource.

Even if there is no contemporaneous notes or other documents falling within the scope of the request, there must be information contained in documents (for example, emails between officials) that were generated in the course of preparing the response to the separate freedom of information request referred to in the response:

https://www.gov.je/government/freedomofinformation/pages/foi.aspx?ReportID=7845 ​

In order to respond that the instruction was given “verbally”, there must have been some kind of investigation establishing when and how that was done, which would itself have led to information relevant to this present request being created.

If there is an email, for example, where it is stated along the lines of “The instruction was given verbally by the Minister in a meeting with X, and therefore we do not have any written note of it”, then that would be information falling within the scope of the present request.

The response – i.e. that no such information is held – suggests that non-contemporaneous material was not considered for disclosure. This approach is incorrect – all information held at the time of the request should be considered, and this should have included relevant information generated in preparing the response to the earlier request.

Should clarification of the grounds of this internal review request be required, please let me know as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Internal Review Response 

Your Internal Review was conducted by officials of appropriate seniority who were expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law. 

The Internal Review Panel was asked to confirm the following:

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. 

Further questions: 

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? 

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that:

1. The panel sought additional searches and were satisfied that those searches were properly carried out.

2. The panel were satisfied that Article 16 applies to the information produced.

A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations. 

3. The panel were also satisfied that it was established that the relevant information would be withheld under the following Articles:

i. Article 27 – National Security

ii. Article 41 – International Relations

iii. Article 42 (a) and (g) – Law enforcement re the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere; and the proper supervision or regulation of financial services.

4. The panel requested that a separate FOI request be opened in respect of the response from the States of Jersey Police on Question 3:

Copies of any notes (whether formal or informal) or other documents (including, without limitation, emails) recording (in whole or in part) the instruction (direction) or any aspect thereof.