Correspondence related to Wall Street Journal article (FOI)

​​​​Request

On 24 May 2022, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article by Max Colchester and Margot Patrick, with the headline: “The Island Where Roman Abramovich Kept $7 Billion Is Now Scrutinizing the Russian Oligarch”

The article is available online at:

The Island Where Roman Abramovich Kept $7 Billion Is Now Scrutinizing the Russian Oligarch (wsj.com)​

Please provide copies of all correspondence (whether by email or otherwise), documentation, internal briefings and notes in relation to the WSJ article above (including for the avoidance of doubt, both (a) prior to and (b) after its publication)?

Without limitation to the foregoing, please provide:

(1) copies of any briefing notes or similar prepared for

(a) Deputy Ian Gorst and

(b) Deputy Kirsten Morel; and

(2) any documents recording any comments provided by or on behalf of Deputy Gorst and or Deputy Morel to the WSJ.

For all emails, please also provide copies of any attachments to those emails.

​Response

Searches were initially performed using the auditable email archive service of the Government of Jersey for Deputy Ian Gorst, Deputy Kirsten Morel and the Press Office email address. Subsequently other searches were conducted against the accounts of all individuals who were identified as being party as being party to correspondence in relation to the Wall Street Journal Article, for the period 22 April to 30 May 2022.  

It is not possible to search the entirety of every Government employee’s account. Searches for particular words or topics must be conducted against named accounts.  In this case the accounts of every individual who was copied in on correspondence was searched to determine if they may have some other documentation, briefing note or correspondence about the WSJ article referenced. 

All relevant records retrieved have been reviewed and the extracted correspondence is attached. Duplicate emails have been eliminated, and, where appropriate, the correspondence has been redacted under Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Correspondence 1_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence 2_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence 3_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence 4_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence 5_Redacted.pdf

Correspondence with the Bailiff’s has also been withheld under Article 31 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

There were no additional briefing notes or similar prepared for Deputy Gorst or Deputy Morel relating to the Wall Street Journal article. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law applies to this information. 

Articles applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

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.​