Deputy Gorst correspondence (FOI)

​​​​​​​​​​​​Request

On 1 April 2022, correspondence was sent on behalf of Senator Ian Gorst, for the attention of [Name Redacted], a Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as part of “co-ordinated efforts” by the UK and Jersey authorities to freeze assets in Jersey, through the imposition of financial sanctions and obtaining of court orders. 

Please provide a copy of that correspondence, including the letter from Senator Gorst addressed to [Name Redacted] sent on 1 April 2022, and any related correspondence (including, without limitation, internal email correspondence and attachments) from the period 24 February 2022 to 30 April 2022 (inclusive).

Response

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

All emails were reviewed and those in scope are attached. 

Correspondence_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence has been withheld in accordance with Articles 31 and 41 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.

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 31 - Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer

Information is qualified exempt information if it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Public Interest Test 

With regard to the public interest arguments, HM Treasury v IC [2009] EWHC 1811 Blake J recognised that when engaged, the Convention will carry significant weight in the public interest test. The Convention has been considered by the Office of the Information Commissioner and was held to be part of Jersey law.

Whilst it is recognised that the strong public interest in protecting Law Officers’ advice may still be overridden in some cases if there are particularly strong factors in favour of disclosure, conversely, disclosing the advice or whether advice was or will be sought could inhibit the Law Officers from (1) giving frank advice (2) inhibit government bodies in taking advice for fear of its publication; and (3) inhibit the full disclosure to the Law Officers of all material relevant to the advice being sought and therefore real weight ought to be afforded to this aspect of the Law Officers’ Convention.

Disclosing either the legal advice or the fact of whether specific advice was sought to the public is not a greater consideration of public interest that requires disclosure of the advice or confirmation of what advice was given. It does not outweigh the three principles set out above which require the long-standing Law Officer Convention to be maintained. Therefore, the balance is in favour of maintaining the exemption and it is not considered the public interest in disclosure outweighs the preservation of the Convention on this occasion.

Article 41 - International relations

(1) Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between Jersey and –

(a) the United Kingdom;

(b) a State other than Jersey;

(c) an international organization; or

(d) an international court.

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

(a) any Jersey interests abroad; or

(b) the promotion or protection by Jersey of any such interest.

(3) Information is also qualified exempt information if it is confidential information obtained from –

(a) a State other than Jersey;

(b) an international organization; or

(c) an international court.

(4) In this Article, information obtained from a State, organization or court is confidential while –

(a) the terms on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence; or

(b) the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State, organization or court to expect that it will be so held.

(5) In this Article –

“international court” means an international court that is not an international organization and that was established –

(a) by a resolution of an international organization of which the United Kingdom is a member; or

(b) by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party;

“international organization” means an international organization whose members include any two or more States, or any organ of such an organization;

“State” includes the government of a State and any organ of its government, and references to a State other than Jersey include references to a territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is formally responsible.

Public Interest Test 

The public interest in respect of Article 41 is weighted in favour of maintaining the exemption unless equally strong countervailing public interest arguments favour the disclosure of the information. It is recognised that there is a public interest in providing transparency about the island's network of international agreements. However, having considered the public interest, the Scheduled Public Authority concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information at this time is outweighed by the public interest considerations in withholding the information, in support of the Island's interests and to avoid any potential prejudice to the Island's relationship with the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. ​

Internal Review Request

I am writing to request that an internal review of the response (the “Response”) of the Scheduled Public Authority (the “SPA”) to the Request (referenced above) please be carried out, with the minimum of delay.

Consistent with the Office of the Information Commissioner - Code of Practice on the discharge of Scheduled Public Authorities’ functions under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, issued in accordance with Article 44 of the Law (the "Code of Practice"), I request that the internal review:

• be a fair, thorough and independent review of the process adopted and decisions taken by the SPA pursuant to the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (the "FOI Law");
• enables a fresh decision to be taken on reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the request;
• be undertaken by someone senior to the original decision maker; and
• takes into account (amongst other things) any further matters raised during the investigation of the complaint (including the matters set out in this letter).

I should be grateful if a copy of this letter could please be presented to the members of the Internal Review Panel appointed, in order that the matters set out herein may be given full and careful consideration as part of the Internal Review Panel's independent review of the Response.

As part of the internal review, I would ask that the Internal Review Panel carefully review (amongst other things) whether appropriate searches were carried out to identify all relevant information. Further comments regarding this matter are set out below.

I would also ask that the Internal Review Panel critically consider whether the exemptions cited have in fact been properly applied to withhold information. Further (non-exhaustive) comments regarding each of the exemptions cited (Articles 25, 31 and 41) follow.

Adequate searches

Upon receipt of a request for information under the FOI Law, the SPA must carry out appropriate searches to determine what information it holds. I continue to have concerns that the SPA may not have carried out appropriate searches and, as a result, may not have identified (and, consequently, not have provided in the Response) all of the relevant information held.

The Response stated: “Email searches were performed using the auditable email archive service of the Government of Jersey on the account of Deputy Ian Gorst.”

On 11 June 2024, I raised (via the Central Freedom of Information (FOI) Unit) concerns about (1) the custodians searched and (2) the scope of the searches.

In respect of the custodians, I noted that the Request was not limited to Deputy Gorst's emails. The Request was a request for information, whether held by Deputy Gorst or any other relevant person within the Government of Jersey. Accordingly, I expected reasonable searches for responsive information would have been carried out on other potentially relevant accounts (not just that of Deputy Gorst). I also expected searches not to have been limited solely to the email archive, but also to have encompassed searches of other document storage facilities and hard copy documentation.

In respect of the scope of the searches, I noted that it appeared that the searches may have focused only on the letter sent to [name redacted] on 1 April 2022. The Request, however, also sought "related correspondence" from the period 24 February 2022 to 30 April 2022 (inclusive). I raised concerns that searches for related correspondence were not carried out and / or that an overly restrictive interpretation of "related" may have been adopted. I also noted that "related" was intended to cover not only emails about the letter to [name redacted], but also correspondence relating to the same subject matter as that letter.

To the extent that there was other correspondence (whether internal or otherwise), relating to the “co-ordinated efforts” by the UK and Jersey authorities to freeze assets in Jersey, through the imposition of financial sanctions and obtaining of court orders, I believe that such correspondence should also have been considered as responsive to the request and disclosed.

On 30 July 2024, it was confirmed to me that it had been established that further correspondence was releasable. Copies of certain further emails (with redactions) were accordingly disclosed.

Regrettably, no detail was provided about the further searches undertaken by the SPA. As a result, it remains unclear:

(i) whether the SPA widened its search to include further custodians;

(ii) whether the SPA ran searches on the Cryoserver, to locate information that may not otherwise have been retained in individual email accounts (and which therefore would not have been located by searches of email accounts);

(iii) whether other storage systems (for example, shared file and document storage systems) were searched, as well as email accounts;

(iv) whether hard copy files were searched;

(v) whether the scope of the searches was as requested, i.e. all correspondence relating to the subject matter of the letter to Lord Ahmad, as well as relating to the letter itself;

(vi) whether an overly restrictive interpretation of “correspondence” was taken by the SPA, despite the fact that “correspondence” (if properly interpreted) should encompass both written letters and also email communications. (The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines correspondence as “communication by letters or email”:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correspondence)

At present, I have concerns that relevant correspondence​ relating to the subject matter may have been omitted from the Response. Without limitation, it is reasonable to believe that there may have been: (a) follow-on correspondence from Jersey’s initial proposal to the UK to impose asset- freezes under the Russia sanctions regime, including correspondence identifying the need to specifically sanction certain individuals; (b) correspondence commenting on the fact that individuals that Jersey had proposed be subject to asset-freezes had subsequently been sanctioned by the UK. The fact that no such correspondence has been disclosed contributes to concerns that the searches carried out were inadequate and/or relevant information was incorrectly withheld.

Given previous contacts between the Government of Jersey and the role that the UK’s Home Office plays in implementing and enforcing certain sanctions, it is also reasonable to believe that there may have been relevant correspondence with the Home Office (including, without limitation, with Damian Hinds, MP, then Minister of State (Minister for Security and Borders) at the Home Office, during the relevant period). Again, no such correspondence has been disclosed, which is another reason for concerns that the SPA may have failed to identify and/or incorrectly withheld relevant information.

As part of the internal review, I would ask the Internal Review Panel to carefully review the searches carried out by the SPA, and the scope of those searches, and consider whether additional searches should reasonably have been carried out. This is not a request that the parameters of the Request be expanded; rather the Internal Review Panel is asked to consider whether the SPA adequately searched for material responsive to the Request.

If the scope of the search actually carried out by the SPA was narrower than that I have suggested would have been appropriate (i.e. if the SPA did not search for correspondence relating to the subject matter of the letter to Lord Ahmad, as well as relating to the letter itself, and / or if the SPA adopted a narrow definition of “correspondence”), but the Internal Review Panel nevertheless believes that the scope of the search was adequate (contrary to my submissions otherwise), I should be grateful if this could please be noted in the internal review response.

Article 25 (Personal Information)

The Response states that some information has been redacted in accordance with Article 25 of the FOI Law.

The Response should have stated whether information was withheld under Article 25(1) and / or Article 25(2) of the FOI Law.

It is understood that the redactions to the documents disclosed were made only in reliance on Article 25 of the FOI Law. If some of the redactions were made in reliance on Articles 31 and/or 41, this should have been noted in the Response and should now be clarified in the internal review response, to avoid further misunderstanding. In such case, it would also be helpful if the redactions (to the extent maintained, if at all, following the internal review) could be annotated to indicate the specific exemption relied on (if such exemption is other than Article 25).

I am concerned that information may have been withheld under Article 25(2) of the FOI Law in circumstances when it should not have been.

I accept that names of individuals per se constitute their personal data. As is clear from the disclosure of the names of certain individuals, however, that is not by itself sufficient to withhold the information. The SPA must consider whether disclosing such personal data would be unfair.

I am concerned that the SPA may have erroneously applied a blanket policy to withhold the names of individuals if they are below a certain level of seniority or if they work for other public bodies, such as the Law Officers’ Department or the UK Government. Such a blanket approach has previously been criticized by the Commissioner where it was noted (at paragraph 62) that “It is not sufficient to simply identify an individual as being of a particular rank and claim an exemption in every single instance and redact their details.”:

dec​ision-notice-final-version-2-57259.pdf (jerseyoic.org), OIC Reference 202-03-57259

The Internal Review Panel is requested to carefully scrutinise the decision to withhold the name of each individual, individually; as noted by the Commissioner, a blanket policy is not the correct approach to take.

It appears that the names of certain employees of the Government of Jersey have been redacted. From the documents disclosed, it seems clear that those individuals were involved in relevant email correspondence in their capacity as public officials; not private individuals. In circumstances where the individuals were carrying out their public functions, they cannot reasonably have expected that their names would remain private. Such individuals must have had the expectation that their actions in their capacity as public officials would be subject to scrutiny.

The Internal Review Panel should carefully consider in respect of each individual the extent to which their role is a public facing role, as this is a relevant factor as to whether an individual could reasonably be said to have had an expectation of privacy in respect of their work. By way of example, [name and title redacted], has been featured in the Press, promoting his role see Kremlin crackdown: Island firms go onto high-risk list nd has given public presentations to over 300 members of industry:

• [Links to third party data redacted]
  

Attorney Generals of Jersey (past and present) are clearly public figures:

statesassembly.gov.je/members/RobertMacRae ​

It is difficult to see any reasonable basis for withholding the name of an Attorney General on the basis of Article 25.

Members of the Law Officers’ Department are also often in public facing roles. This is particularly the case Crown Advocates, who frequently appear in public in court and are named in reports of court proceedings and associated judgments. Again, it is difficult to see how such individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy when carrying out their duties as public officials.

It is apparent that the name of [name redacted] of Wimbledon has also been redacted.  ​Lord Ahmad is a public figure and, at the relevant time, was a Minister at the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) – see Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon KCMG - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).It cannot be reasonably said that Lord Ahmad had a expectation of privacy when carrying out this senior government role. As such, disclosure of his name would not be in breach of the data protection principles and, accordingly, the redaction of his name is not in accordance with Article 25.

The over-zealous redaction of Lord Ahamad’s name contributes to concerns about the overall approach taken by the SPA to redacting information on the basis of Article 25.

There is undoubtedly a legitimate interest in disclosing the names of the individuals involved in the correspondence, namely the principle of accountability and transparency.

Further, the Response does not indicate that there would be any significant adverse consequences from disclosure of the names of the individuals whose names have been redacted. It seems improbable that the SPA would be able to credibly point to any such adverse consequences, given that the names of individuals (and their roles) are likely to be a matter of public record – in most cases because of publication by the individual themselves (for example, on social media websites such as LinkedIn) and/or the public organisation that employs them. Concerns that an individual may have about public scrutiny of their actions as public officials cannot be considered valid concerns; indeed, such public scrutiny is one of the intended consequences of the public’s ability to request information under the FOI Law and is firmly in the public interest.

For all of the reasons stated above, I believe that the names of public officials and politicians should not have been withheld.

In contrast to public officials that work for the Government of Jersey, the UK Government or other public bodies, and politicians, I accept that private third parties would generally have had an expectation that their names would be kept private and, accordingly, do not seek to challenge the redaction of any such individual’s names.

Article 31

The Response states that correspondence has been withheld in accordance with Article 31 of the FOI Law.

I note that Article 31 is strictly limited to information that “is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General” (emphasis added).

Furthermore, even if the withheld information does constitute such “advice” by the Attorney General (or one of the other persons expressly named in Article 31), the public interest must still be considered. If the legislature had intended Article 31 to be an absolute exemption, it would have provided for this in the FOI Law; instead, Article 31 is a qualified exemption only. There is no presumption, accordingly, in favour of withholding information under Article 31; on the contrary, as the Commissioner has previously noted, the principle behind the FOI Law is to release information unless there is good reason not to.

Factors favouring disclosure include the general public interest in accountability and transparency, as well as any specific public interest. In the present case, it is noted that Law Officers’ Department has pro-actively courted publicity for the role it has played in freezing assets, publishing a press release that garnered worldwide interest from international media, and thereby already disclosing its involvement.

There may be other factors favouring disclosure that are apparent to the Internal Review Panel, upon review of the withheld information. The Internal Review Panel is urged not to approach the review from the perspective of trying to “justify” the SPA’s approach and/or with the goal of withholding information; the Internal Review Panel must approach the review with an open-mind and actively seek to identify factors that favour disclosure, as well as any factors favouring the application of the exemption under Article 31.

Even if some information may be legitimately withheld under Article 31 (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not accepted), consideration should be given to whether all (or just some) of the information withheld was properly exempt. Exemptions should not be applied in a blanket fashion. For example, correspondence may contain (amongst other things) advice from the Attorney General, but also other material that does not constitute such advice. In such case, the proper approach is to disclose the correspondence with appropriate redactions, rather than withhold the correspondence in its entirety.

Article 41

The Response states that correspondence has been withheld in accordance with Article 41 of the FOI Law. However, the Response does not state which part(s) of Article 41 are engaged and is therefore deficient.

In the absence of this information, I have been denied a proper opportunity to challenge the decision. To the extent the Internal Review upholds the decision to withhold information in reliance on Article 41, it should clearly state which part of Article 41 is being relied upon.

The Response is also deficient because it does not state whether it is the SPA’s position that disclosure of the “would” prejudice, or instead only “would be likely to” prejudice.

Article 41 is a prejudice-based exemption. This means that it can only be properly relied on where disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause harm. To demonstrate the harm, the SPA must satisfy a prejudice test.

The Commissioner has previously issued a detailed guidance on the prejudice test. The Commissioner’s guidance notes that consideration of the prejudice test should involve the following three steps:

(a) Identify the “applicable interests” within the relevant exemption.

(b) Identify the “nature of the prejudice”. This means: (i) show that the prejudice claimed is “real, actual or of substance”; (ii) show that there is a “casual link” between the disclosure and the prejudice claimed.

(c) Decide on the “likelihood of the occurrence of prejudice”.

The Response does not adequately: (a) identify the applicable interests; (b) identify the nature of the prejudice; or (c) decide on the likelihood of the occurrence of prejudice.

Indeed, it is not clear from the Response that the prejudice test has been considered by the SPA, as the only comments provided in the Response relate to the public interest test. The Response does not contain any mention of the prejudice test.

The Commissioner’s guidance notes, in respect of step 2, that “there must be more than a mere assertion or belief that disclosure would lead to prejudice. There must be a logical connection between the disclosure and the prejudice in order to engage the exemption”.

The same guidance also notes, “If a SPA is withholding information under a prejudice-based exemption, it should always make a choice between would or would be likely to and state this in its refusal notice.”

As is noted above, the Response does not include this information, failing to state (amongst other things) whether the SPA believes that disclosure “would” or “would be likely to” prejudice. This gives rise to concerns that the SPA has not properly understood and/or applied the prejudice test.

If the Internal Review Panel reasonably believes that the prejudice test is satisfied, I would ask that the reasons for this are clearly set out in the internal review response. In the absence of an explanation of why the SPA asserts that Article 41 is engaged, I have been denied a proper opportunity to challenge the application of this exemption.

It is clear, nevertheless, that an important factor to consider is the context of the information. As the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has noted, in relation to the equivalent exemption under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 27), “differences in culture and social customs, religion and the type of government of other states will be relevant. Disclosing potentially controversial information about one state may not have any material impact on international relations, but disclosing relatively bland information about a different state may have a significant impact.”

The UK and Jersey are both established democracies, with robust (and similar) freedom of information laws, and a recognition that transparency in government is important. The Government of Jersey’s Council of Ministers has publicly committed to openness, transparency and accountability in government, and the UK Government can reasonably be expected to be aware of this. The UK Government has similarly stated that “Greater transparency across government is at the heart of our commitment to let you hold politicians and public bodies to account” (see https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/transparency ). This is not a situation where the other state may, in contrast to Jersey, expect a high degree of secrecy in relation to the dealings of its government.

Moreover, Jersey and UK have a particularly strong relationship. The Government of Jersey’s website states the following about Jersey’s relationship with the UK: “The United Kingdom is Jersey's closest international partner. Deep social, cultural, economic, and constitutional links have been built and maintained between the two jurisdictions over hundreds of years.” Accordingly, the context is not one where relations are fragile or unpredictable, and thereby more susceptible to disturbance; quite the contrary is the case.

Considering the relevant context, in particular the extremely close, and long-standing, ties between the Jersey and UK, it would stretch credulity to suggest that releasing information about co-operation between Jersey and the UK to freeze assets in Jersey would cause any real prejudice to relations between Jersey and the UK.

This is particularly so given that both the Government of Jersey and the UK Government have already actively taken very public steps to promote and publicise the co-ordination between Jersey and the UK, which the Request relates to. One example of this is an article published in the Jersey Evening Press with the headline “Jersey ‘on front line’ of anti-Russian sanctions”,which contains the following: “‘Co-ordinated efforts’ between Jersey and the UK also led to the assets of [ … ] being frozen last week, said Senator Gorst” ( see Jersey ‘on front line’ of anti-Russian sanctions - Jersey Evening Post ).

The UK’s Foreign Secretary (the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss) also publicly disclosed and promoted the co-ordination with the Jersey authorities, releasing a press release on 14 April 2022 stating (amongst other things) that: “these sanctions have been co-ordinated with action taken by the Jersey authorities earlier this week to impose a formal freezing order on assets suspected to be connected to [ … ], valued in excess of £5 billion.” See: UK hits key Russian oligarchs with sanctions worth up to £10 billion - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

In light of the UK’s active promotion of its co-ordination with Jersey in relation to freezing of assets, it would not be reasonable to believe that disclosing information relating to that co-ordination would prejudice Jersey’s relations with the UK or the interests of Jersey abroad.

Indeed, it is clear from the actions it took that the Government of Jersey (as well as the UK Government) did not believe that publicising the co- ordination would prejudice Jersey-UK relations; on the contrary, it evidently believed that such publicity would enhance relations, since active steps were taken by both the Jersey and UK Governments to promote this co- ordination through considered statements to the Media.

Contrary to any suggestion that releasing the information would harm relations between Jersey and UK, based on the contemporaneous actions of the Jersey and UK Governments (rather than the SPA’s post-factum attempts to limit disclosure) the more reasonable conclusion is that releasing further information about this coordination would be likely to strengthen Jersey-UK relations (to the extent it would have any affect at all, which is not accepted, given the deep and long-standing relationship between Jersey and UK).

If the prejudice test is not satisfied, then there is no need to consider the public interest test, as information cannot be withheld on the basis of Article 41 if the prejudice test is not satisfied.

If, the Internal Review Panel considers that the prejudice test is satisfied, it must then go on to consider the public interest test, since Article 41 is a qualified exemption only. In considering the public interest, the Internal Review Panel should have at the forefront of their considerations that the principle behind the FOI Law is to disclose information unless there is good reason not to.

From the Response, it appears that the SPA has only given (at most) cursory consideration to the public interest. The Response states: “The public interest in respect of Article 41 is weighted in favour of maintaining the exemption unless equally strong countervailing public interest arguments favour the disclosure of the information. It is recognised that there is a public interest in providing transparency about the island's network of international agreements. However, having considered the public interest, the Scheduled Public Authority concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information at this time is outweighed by the public interest considerations in withholding the information, in support of the Island's interests and to avoid any potential prejudice to the Island's relationship with the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions.”

It is apparent from desktop searches that this wording is effectively taken from a “template” response, which has been previously used in response to other (unrelated) requests – see, for example, gov.je/government/freedomofinformation/pages/foi.aspx?ReportID=6378. The use of generic wording suggests that little consideration may have given to the actual circumstances of this case. Rather, it appears that the decision to withhold information may have been taken without due consideration of the particular circumstances.

Moreover, the wording used in the Response indicates that the SPA has incorrectly started from a presumption that, unless there are public interest arguments favour disclosure, information should be withheld. This is an entirely backward approach. As with Article 31, if the legislature had intended Article 41 to be an absolute exemption, it would have provided for this in the FOI Law; instead, Article 41 is a qualified exemption only. There is no presumption, accordingly, in favour of withholding information under Article 41. As noted above, the Commissioner has previously emphasised that the principle behind the FOI Law is to release information unless there is good reason not to.

There are clear reasons for believing that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in withholding the requested information. As the Response itself notes, there is public interest in providing transparency about Jersey’s relations with other States. In the present case, releasing the information would increase public knowledge about relations with the UK authorities. This is clearly a matter of public interest, as is apparent from the fact that the Government of Jersey maintains its own webpage setting out information about Jersey’s relationship with the UK.

It is clear that the co-ordination between the Jersey and the UK in relation to sanctions is also considered a specific matter of public interest by the Government of Jersey. In written evidence submitted to the Justice Committee of the UK’s House of Commons, the Government of Jersey specifically chose to emphasise this co-ordination, stating: “The Government of Jersey remains in lockstep  with  the  UK  in  the implementation of sanctions, including those introduced to combat the deplorable actions of Russia against Ukraine. We work closely with the FCDO and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in this respect, and as a matter of common practice, follow the UK in implementing autonomous sanctions issued by the UK, in Jersey.”

The Government of Jersey has also chosen to specifically highlight the co- ordination with the UK in freezing assets. See for example, the Jersey Evening Press article noted above. This is further evidence that the Government of Jersey believed that releasing information about this co- ordination was a matter of public interest.

Given that the Government of Jersey (as well as the UK Government) has voluntarily taken steps to publicise the “co-ordination”, there is a clear and strong public interest in favour of information relating to this co-ordination being made available to the public, in order that the public can have a fuller picture of what this involved. The SPA’s decision to withhold information, means that the public has been “drip-fed” only certain information that has been cherry-picked by the SPA; this is self-evidently contrary to the public interest.

In the circumstances, there are strong reasons for believing that the SPA has erred in determining that the public interest favours withholding the information. If the Internal Review Panel nevertheless determines that it is in the public interest to continue to withhold the information, it would be in the interest of transparency if it provides a significantly more detailed explanation of why this is the case, as opposed to the generic assertions provided by the SPA to-date.

Even if the Internal Review Panel determines that some information may be legitimately withheld under Article 41, consideration should be given to whether all (or just some) of the information withheld was properly exempt. As is noted above in relation to Article 31, exemptions should not be applied in a blanket fashion. Correspondence may contain (amongst other things) certain information that it is determined is properly exempt under Article 41, whilst also containing other information that does not satisfy the necessary prejudice and/or public interest tests. In such case, the proper approach would be to disclose the correspondence with appropriate redactions, rather than withhold the correspondence in its entirety.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is submitted that the Internal Review Panel should carefully review (amongst other things) whether appropriate searches were carried out to identify all relevant information. Further, it is submitted that information should not have been withheld from the Response. Alternatively, only part (and not the whole) of the information that has been withheld should have been withheld.

Accordingly, the Internal Review Panel is requested to require disclosure of the information previously withheld. Alternatively, if the Internal Review Panel determines that the exemptions properly apply to some (but not all) of the withheld information, then the SPA should continue to withhold only that information and should disclose the remainder of the information previously withheld.

Internal Review Response 

The panel reviewed the initial response and Internal Review request, dated June 2024, and then moved to ask the following questions:

i) Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii) Was personal data appropriately redacted in accordance with Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011?

iii) Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with Article 31 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (where it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General) and was the public interest test properly applied?

iv) Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with Article 41 of the FOI Law (where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between Jersey and another state/ international organisation etc.), has the prejudice test been properly applied, and was the public interest test properly applied?

The Panel, having undertaken their necessary investigations and considered all of the information provided, instructed the Scheduled Public Authority to provide revised redactions to the documents previously released, as attached.​

Correspondence - Original - IR revised redactions_Redacted.pdf

Revised response Correspondence 1 - IR revised redactions_Redacted.pdf