Road Safety Panel Meetings

​​​​Request ​849439062

Minutes of the road safety review panel meetings for May and June 2026 and a list of attendees. 

Response

The minutes of the road safety review panel meetings for May and June 2026 are exempt under Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as these currently remain policy under development.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest and prejudice tests have been applied and are shown at the end of this response. The job titles of the attendees are attached, personal information has been exempted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.

Articles applied

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.

Prejudice and Public Interest tests

Application of Article 35 – Formulation and Development of Policies

The requested information relates to ongoing policy development and internal deliberations concerning road safety planning. Article 35 is engaged where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the formulation or development of policy.

Disclosure of this information at this stage would be likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between officials and decision-makers. The minutes reflect evolving positions, options under consideration, and internal advice that has not yet been finalised. Premature disclosure would undermine the “safe space” required for effective policy formulation, as stakeholders may become less willing to express candid opinions if such views are subject to public scrutiny before decisions are reached.

There is a real and significant risk that disclosure would distort public understanding by presenting incomplete or provisional information, potentially leading to misinformed debate and external pressure that could adversely affect the integrity and effectiveness of the policy development process.

Accordingly, it is considered that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the formulation and development of policy within the meaning of Article 35.

Conclusion of Prejudice Test

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that:

Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the formulation and development of policy (Article 35); and the exemption is therefore engaged.

While there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, particularly in relation to policymaking, this is outweighed in this case by the strong public interest in:

Maintaining the integrity of the policy development process. 

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were considered.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• ​Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions have taken place.
• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• ​​In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.
• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.
• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.
• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​

Internal Review Request

Thank you for your response. I was informed that no minutes are kept of these meetings yet it seems that is not correct. I raised a legitimate road safety concern and would like to see the minutes specifically for the issue I raised.

I would like an review of this request based on the following

The response is obviously a generic response and

1. Insufficient evidence of prejudice

o The authority has asserted harm but not demonstrated why disclosure of these particular minutes would prejudice policy formulation.

2. Failure to consider partial disclosure

o They have not explained why factual material, decisions, actions or non-sensitive sections cannot be released with appropriate redactions.

3. Public interest balancing

o The public interest in transparency regarding road safety has not been fully considered.

4. Lack of specificity

o The refusal does not identify the policy under development or explain its current status.

The response never says they considered:

• releasing factual sections,

• releasing action points,

• releasing decisions already made,

• redacting only sensitive deliberations.

Bearing in my mind I was informed by email that NO minutes are taken at these meetings. I look forward to receiving the response

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following: Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. Further questions if above is a yes:

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld.

The Panel agreed that the information disclosed in the original response was correct.

The SPA clarified that the notes taken during the meeting are agreed action points rather than minutes taken, therefore the term ‘minute’ is not the correct term used to define the records taken during those meetings​.