Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Council of Ministers

​​Request 713502281​

Please see my queries below for your kind attention: 

1. Are any members of the current Council of Ministers also members of an organisation calling itself the 'Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign'? 

2. Please provide all email correspondence to or from any member of the current Council of Ministers containing any of the terms below: 

- 'Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign' 

- 'JPSC' - 'Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002' 

- 'Terrorism Law' 

3. Has the Chief Minister provided any guidance to members of the Council of Ministers in relation to dealings with the group calling itself the 'Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign'? Please can this be provided if so. 

4. The Council of Ministers adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism at its meeting on 18 September 2019. Please confirm that position remains the case. 

Thank you for your time.

Response

1.

Records are not maintained by the Government of the memberships that Ministers hold for any organisation.

Any memberships would not be information held under the Law as the Law relates to information held by Ministers in their official capacity and not information that relates to their private activities and Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

2.

Any email correspondence relating to the terms would not be conducted in a ministerial capacity, and therefore is outside the scope of the Law, save in relation to those Ministers holding responsibilities for these matters.

For this reason, the Ministers for External Relations, Justice and Home Affairs and Chief Minister have been searched, using the search terms detailed below, from 30th January 2024 to date, and the resulting emails in scope of the request are attached.

Correspondence Attachment.pdf​

- 'Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign' 

- 'JPSC' - 'Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002' 

- 'Terrorism Law'

Emails have been withheld in accordance with Articles 31 and 42 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Redactions to the correspondence have been applied in accordance with Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

3.

The Ministerial Code of Conduct and Practice deals with matters relating to ministerial conduct and no specific guidance has been issued by the Chief Minister on this matter. This has been confirmed by the searches run on the email account of the Chief Minister.

4.

We hold no records indicating that the position of the Council of Ministers has changed.

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 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.

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

The public interest in disclosing information when this article is being applied must weigh particularly heavily in favour of disclosure in order to outweigh the inherent right to privilege.

It is not considered the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by that in maintaining the exemption, as it is designed to protect the constitutional Law Officer privilege.

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;

(c) the administration of justice, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature;

(e) the operation of immigration controls, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

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

(g) the proper supervision or regulation of financial services; or

(h) the exercise, by the Jersey Financial Services Commission, of any function imposed on it

by any enactment.

Public Interest Test

Article 42 is a qualified exemption and as such a prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. We have assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability to the general public by providing confirmation that necessary actions are taking place.

This must be balanced, however, against potential prejudice to any existing or future criminal investigations. We have concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result for any future proceedings.