Compensation following raid on premises (FOI)

Original Request

This FOI request is in relation to the unlawful raid on premises in Jersey allegedly in relation to [name redacted] that occurred in April 2022. Jersey police have admitted it was unlawful.

A

Which business premises in Jersey were raided?

B

Has compensation been paid, if so who has it been paid to, and how much was paid out?

C

Which funds has this compensation come from? is it from an insurance fund or directly from tax payers money?

D

Will anyone face disciplinary action for the 'unlawful raid'? If so what kind of action?

Original Response

Article 42(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is engaged in respect of all questions and accordingly a response is declined. 

Further exemptions are engaged on individual responses as follows:

A

The requested information is contained in confidential documents and revealing them would be a contempt of court. Article 29(c) of Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is therefore engaged and a response is declined. 

B and C

This information is exempt from publication under Article 24 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

D

The request is for third party personal information and disclosure of this information would breach the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018. Article 25(2) of Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is therefore engaged and a response is declined.  

Articles applied

Article 24 - Court information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is held by a scheduled public authority only by virtue of being contained in a document –

(a) filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court; or

(b) served upon, or by, the scheduled public authority, in proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is held by a scheduled public authority only by virtue of being contained in a document created by –

(a) a court; or

(b) a member of the administrative staff of a court, in proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

(3) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is held by a scheduled public authority only by virtue of being contained in a document –

(a) placed in the custody of; or

(b) created by, a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration, for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration.

(4) In this Article –

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.

29      Other prohibitions or restrictions

Information is absolutely exempt information if the disclosure of the information by the scheduled public authority holding it –

(c)     would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court.

42      Law enforcement

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, whether in respect of offences committed in Jersey or elsewhere;

Public Interest Test 

Article 42 is a qualified exemption and as such a prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. We have assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability to the general public by providing confirmation that necessary actions are taking place. However, this must be balanced against potential prejudice to any existing or future criminal investigations. We have concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result for any future proceedings.

Internal Review Request

I would like an internal review of this FOI request. As I understand it there are no court proceedings ongoing at the moment of this case, therefore I am unclear how publication can be contempt of court.

In regards to questions B and C, any compensation paid is public money, therefore it is in the public interest to be disclosed. Again the funds the compensation came from, would be government owned and therefore public money, it is in the public interest to be disclosed. There are no court proceedings ongoing, therefore I am unclear why disclosing this information would be contempt of court. 

For question D I am not asking for the individual's name. I am asking if anyone will face disciplinary action for this, and what action it is.  Therefore it doesn't breach data protection. 

Internal Review Response

A

The States of Jersey Police have revisited the relevant confidential court documentation and have reaffirmed that public disclosure of affected business addresses would amount to a contempt of court. We have confirmed that Article 29(c) of Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is engaged and our original response is maintained.

B and C

This review has been completed by two senior staff members of the Government of Jersey, independent of the original decision-making process.

The original response has been reviewed and assessed to identify whether the application of the exemption had been applied correctly.

The reviewers, having considered the application of Article 24 in this instance, concluded that the exemption was appropriate and should be upheld. 

However, they did conclude that an explanation could have been provided noting that, at the time the request was received, the Court case was ongoing and no outcome had been finalised.

D

The States of Jersey Police appreciate that the applicant has not requested the names of individual police officers. However, personal data not only includes information relating to persons who can be identified or who are identifiable, directly from the information in question, but also officers who can be indirectly identified from that information in combination with other information. The number of police officers deployed to the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit is fewer than five. It is not possible to discuss whether or not any disciplinary action is being considered without an individual able to “reasonably” access officer identity from another source. Please refer to guidance issued by the European Union on GDPR at  “What is considered personal data under the EU GDPR? - GDPR.eu”. We have reaffirmed our position that disclosure of this information would breach the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018, and the engagement of Article 25(2) of Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is maintained.   

What is considered personal data under the EU GDPR? - GDPR.eu