Correspondence regarding Hope House and Silkworth Lodge (FOI)

Original request

Could you please provide us with a copy of all of the emails including the terms ‘Hope House’ or ‘Silkworth’ sent between Susan Devlin and the following:

• [redacted]

• [redacted]

• Mark Rogers

• Mark Owers

• Caroline Landon

• Rob Sainsbury

• any other member of staff in the Children’s Services

• any social workers

between 1 February 2021 and 1 July 2021.

Original response

The Department has conducted a search on these accounts and Article 10 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Article Applied

Article 10 - Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding information

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if –

(a) a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and

(b) the authority does not hold the information,

it must inform the applicant accordingly.

(2) If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and –

(a) the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or

(b) if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information if it had held it,

the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) If a scheduled public authority so refuses –

(a) it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and

(b) it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.

Internal Review Request

I would be grateful if you could carry out an internal review of the response.

I do not believe the information requested would be exempt under Article 10 as the emails could easily be redacted to comply with it.

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been completed by two senior members of staff 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 consider that the application of the Article 10 exemption was appropriate and should be upheld.