Draft Regulations under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) (Jersey) Law 200-.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (14/04/2008) regarding: Draft Regulations under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) (Jersey) Law 200-.

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2008-0021
Decision Summary Title :	2008 04 08 RIPL Regs		Date of Decision Summary:	08 April 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Heidi Sydor Executive Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :			Date of Written Report:	08 January 2008
Written Report Author:	Richard Whitehead Principal Legal Adviser		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Draft Regulations under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) (Jersey) Law 200-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- for lodging ‘au Greffe’ for debate on 3rd June 2008.
Reason(s) for Decision: These Regulations modify the application of Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 with respect to the use of devices for detecting of the existence of television receivers on premises in Jersey on behalf of the BBC, for licence fee enforcement purposes.
Resource Implications: There will be no significant financial or manpower implications for the States from the enactment of these Regulations, though there will be a small increase in the area of responsibility of the Interception Commissioner. The cost of obtaining an authorisation will be born by the BBC.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs to request the Greffier of the States to arrange for the draft Regulations to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ and taken into consideration by the States on 3rd June 2008.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Draft Regulations under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) (Jersey) Law 200-.

REPORT

These Regulations would modify the application of Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 (“the 2005 Law”) with respect to the use of devices for the detection of the existence of television receivers on premises in Jersey by, or on behalf of, the BBC, for licence fee enforcement purposes.
Similar provision has been made in the United Kingdom (and in Guernsey) under equivalent legislation.
Part 3 of the 2005 Law makes provision for the grant of authorisations for (inter alia) directed surveillance.
By virtue of Article 32(5) of the 2005 Law, the detection of television receivers is not subject to regulation under Part 3 of the Law. However, Article 42 of the 2005 Law provides for that Part to be applied, or applied with modifications, to types of surveillance which are not otherwise covered.
These Regulations, made pursuant to Article 42, would require authorisations to be obtained for the detection of television receivers under a modified version of Part 3 of the 2005 Law, from the BBC officials mentioned in the new Article 33A of the 2005 Law as it would be inserted by Regulation 3(b).
The grants of authorisation for this purpose will be subject to the scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under Part 4 of the 2005 Law.
The purpose of the 2005 Law is to place surveillance by the police and other public bodies under proper statutory control in accordance with the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. If television licensing detection activities might interfere with the rights protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, such interference could be justified in terms of Article 8(2), for example, for the prevention of crime as licence evasion is a criminal offence. However, Article 8(2) also requires an activity to be in accordance with the Law. The Regulations will fulfil that requirement.
Part 3 of the 2005 Law as modified by the Regulations, would provide for authorisations to be granted in relation to the detection of television receivers only by persons holding senior positions in the BBC licence fee unit. They must be satisfied that an authorisation is necessary for preventing or detecting offences under the Communications Act 2003 (as extended to Jersey).
As with other authorisations under the Law, the person issuing the authorisation must be satisfied that the surveillance authorised is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
It should be noted that any such authorised surveillance will only be carried out from outside the premises concerned; and an authorisation may only last for a maximum of eight weeks.
In addition to the oversight of the of the use of these powers by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, anyone affected by an authorisation has a right to seek redress before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal under Article 46 of the 2005 Law.
The Regulations would, therefore, extend the ambit of the 2005 Law so that this form of surveillance will be subject to the same sort of legal authorisation process as other types of surveillance.

Financial and Manpower Implications

There will be no significant financial or manpower implications for the States from the enactment of these Regulations, though there will be a small increase in the area of responsibility of the Interception Commissioner. The cost of obtaining an authorisation will be born by the BBC.