Fire and Rescue Service and Environmental Health

​​Request 761541836 

Under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, I request disclosure of the following information for the period 1 January 2020 to the present: 

1. The number of properties in Jersey that have been assessed by the Fire and Rescue Service or Environmental Health as presenting an excessive or serious risk to life in the event of fire or explosion.  

2. The number of premises formally subject to Article 20 of the Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law 1977 (prohibition or restriction notices) during the same period.  

3. How many Environmental Health reports have identified fire, gas, or electrical safety hazards but were subsequently reframed or classified by other agencies as cases of self-neglect on the part of the tenant rather than landlord or environmental responsibility.  

4. The current disaster prevention and evacuation strategies in place for residential buildings in St Saviour and St Helier, including coordination between Fire, Environmental Health, and Safeguarding when a property poses imminent danger to life. 

5. A list or summary of any policy or procedural changes introduced following:  

the Haut du Mont explosion (2022),  

the Jersey gas-holder fire (2012), and  

the Mont Fallu fire (2008), 

including any official “lessons learned” or internal reviews regarding water access, gas safety, or inter-agency emergency coordination.  

Response 

1. From the period 1 January 2020 to the present: 

The number of properties in Jersey that have been assessed by the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service as presenting an excessive or serious risk to life in the event of fire or explosion is 5 or less.  

2. There is no Article 20 in the Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law 1977 (prohibition or restriction notices). If referring to Article 9, then see answer 1.   

3. This type of reclassification is not systematically recorded. "Self-neglect” is not a formal category in Environmental Health reporting. Any such interpretation would be case specific and not objectively quantifiable. Justice and Home Affairs does not hold data in a format that would allow this question to be answered under the FOI Law; therefore, this nformation is not held, and Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

4. Evacuation plans for residential buildings in Jersey are the responsibility of the owner or responsible person(s). If a property is deemed unsafe under Article 9 of the Fire Precautions (Jersey) Law 1977, the States of Jersey Fire and Rescue Service issues a notice outlining required actions before reoccupation.  

“Disaster prevention” isn’t formally defined in local policy. Preventative efforts are typically handled through inspections, risk assessments, and fire safety compliance. Fire, Environmental Health, and Safeguarding coordinate on a case-by-case basis when there’s imminent risk to life. There’s no formal joint strategy. Referrals often involve safeguarding concerns like hoarding or self-neglect, but these aren’t systematically tracked. 

5. Due to ongoing and related legal proceedings an answer to this question cannot be provided at this time, and therefore Article 42 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Article 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 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 

As Article 42 is a qualified exemption, a public interest and prejudice test has been conducted as required by law.  

When responding to requests of this nature, the SPA has to balance the public interest with the impact of disclosing if this information is held, and if any information would, or would be likely to, have upon law enforcement. The requested information includes ‘internal reviews’, ‘inter-agency emergency coordination’, and operational procedures. Whilst it is in the public interest to understand if there have been any policy or procedural changes, the likely prejudice to the administration of justice includes ongoing legal proceedings related to the Haut du Mont explosion.  

Public interest in disclosure includes: 

• Transparency and accountability following major incidents. 
  
• Public reassurance that lessons have been learned and improvements implemented. 

Public interest in maintaining the exemption: 

• Protecting sensitive operational details and inter-agency trust. 
• Avoiding prejudice to active prosecutions and investigations. 
• Preserving the integrity of emergency planning and public safety. 
• Protecting information that could be exploited by those with malicious intent. 

When considering the application of this exemption, it has been concluded that, on balance, the risk to prejudice law enforcement and maintaining the exemption, outweighs the benefits of disclosing the information. Therefore Article 42 has been applied.  ​​