FOI

 

​Request

A

How many complaints have been received by the Police in relation to drones since records began? Please break this down by years and months.

B

How many cases have resulted in any kind of formal or disciplinary action against the drone owner / flier?

C

Following Guernsey’s introduction of drone detection and disablement technology at their prison, does Jersey have any plans to introduce such technology? If so, relating to which institutions and when are these expected to be introduced?

Response

A

There were 28 complaints received in total (excluding false alarms). The breakdown by year and month is as follows:

B

When pilots were identified, and where appropriate and necessary, words of advice were given to 14 people.

C

This information is qualified exempt under Article 42 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 and the information is refused. Prejudice and public interest tests have been conducted.

Article and exemption applied

Article 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;

(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained;

Prejudice Test

To engage this exemption we have first conducted a prejudice test. Drones may be used to infiltrate prisons. We believe that to define certain security arrangements already in place at HMP La Moye or other government institutions, and what might be planned for the future, would prejudice the maintenance and security of such institutions, and would likely prejudice law enforcement authorities’ abilities to prevent, detect or investigate crime, and to apprehend and prosecute offenders.

Public Interest Test

Since the exemption which is engaged is a qualified, not an absolute, exemption we have conducted a public interest test as required by Article 9(2) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 to assess whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the public interest in not doing so. Whilst we accept that the public may have an interest in prison security arrangements, this interest is outweighed by the public good (the public interest) to preserve the integrity of such security arrangements.