Complaints about serving politicians (FOI)

Except for the single case below, all of these complaints remain unproven. Due to the small numbers involved, release of any further details is likely to result in the identification of individuals. Article 25(2) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (personal information) is applied.

The exception to the above is the case against the former Connetable of St John which has already been widely reported. Details can be found in the Royal Court judgement of 15 March 2021 at HM Attorney General v Christopher Taylor, Connétable of St. John - Case Law - VLEX 868554425.  As this information is publicly available, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 is applied.

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the 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 2018. 

(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 2018; and (b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law. 

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.