Happy Hooves auctions, passports and communications

​​Request ​800570737

1. Auction/Tender & Private Sales – Happy Hooves Ponies/Horses 

• The auction/tender held on 26 January, including all bids, final selling prices, and the corrected procedure following the initial failure to follow legal requirements. 

• All private sales of ponies/horses before, during, or after the auction/tender, including:

• which animals were diverted to private sale,

• the reasons for doing so,

• sale prices,

• all decision-making criteria used to categorise animals into private sale vs. public auction. 

2. Seizure/Destraint & Triage of Animals 

• All information relating to the seizure/destraint of Happy Hooves animals before, during, and after removal. 

• The triage system applied to the 12 seized animals, including:

• which animals were deemed unfit for auction,

• the basis for those decisions,

• information on the 11 remaining animals and the 4 placed into the tender process. 

3. Passports & Ownership Verification 

• All pony/horse passports recovered during the seizure, including:

• how ownership was verified,

• any discrepancies identified (ownership, description, missing data, irregularities),

• whether concerns were raised or communicated to prospective or actual buyers. 

4. Third-Party Involvement All information, reports, communications, or material provided by: 

• States Veterinary Department, 

• external companies, 

• transport/haulage providers, 

• foster homes or temporary keepers, 

• external agencies, 

• debt-collection or enforcement companies,

• any other third parties involved before, during, or after seizure, private sales, or auction. 

5. Internal & External Communications All internal and external communications in any format, including:

This includes communications relating to:

• the auction/tender process, 

• the initial procedural error and subsequent correction, 

• decision making regarding categorisation of animals, 

• representations made to bidders, 

• financial outcomes of both private and public sales. 

• emails, 

• letters, 

• text messages, 

• messaging apps, 

• telephone calls, 

• meeting notes, 

• internal memos, 

• verbal communications recorded in any form, 

• any other written or electronic messaging format.

Response

Q1 The information requested is exempt under Part 4, Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it contains personal information relating to identifiable individuals. Under Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 such information is absolutely exempt from disclosure and a public interest test is not required

The information is also exempt under Part 5 Article 42 C of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it relates to the administration of justice, specifically the enforcement of a court judgment.

Q2 The information requested is exempt under Part 5 Article 42 C of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it relates to the administration of justice, specifically the enforcement of a court judgment.

Q3 The information requested is exempt under Part 5 Article 42 C of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it relates to the administration of justice, specifically the enforcement of a court judgment.

Q4 The information requested is exempt under Part 5 Article 42 C of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it relates to the administration of justice, specifically the enforcement of a court judgment.

Q5 The information requested is exempt under Part 5 Article 42 C of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, as it relates to the administration of justice, specifically the enforcement of a court judgment.

Where notice of Viscount enforcement actions is required to be published, such notices appear in the Jersey Gazette. Link Jersey Gazette. Article 23 applied.

Articles applied

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(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.

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.

(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.

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.

Prejudice test (Art 42)

In applying Article 42 C, the public authority has considered the prejudice test. Having considered the matter, disclosure would reveal operational detail that could prejudice the proper administration of justice and ability of court enforcement officers to carry out duties.

In order to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice it is considered necessary to prevent disclosure of operational methods, internal decision making and enforcement strategies and approach. It was also considered necessary to protect the individuals involved

in the enforcement process from unnecessary intrusion or interference. It is necessary we can ensure that officers can carry out statutory duties without external pressure or risk of compromising enforcement activity.

Public interest test (Art 42)

In applying Article 42 C, the public authority has considered the public interest in disclosure, including transparency and public understanding of enforcement processes. However, there is a strong public interest in protecting the proper administration of justice, including the effective enforcement of court judgments, the integrity of enforcement processes, and the ability of court enforcement officers to carry out their functions without external interference. Disclosure of the requested information would prejudice these processes by revealing operational details, internal assessments, or information relating to identifiable individuals involved in enforcement activity. While there is a general public interest in transparency, on balance the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.