Les Lilas

​​Request ​847915815

Provide all information held on an application for listing property Les Lilas. The date of the report is 27/4/2026. The report number is HE1956

Response

Information has been withheld in accordance with Article 42 (Law Enforcement) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as it relates to a live Compliance Case.

Article applied

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

Whilst disclosure of the information would support transparency, promote accountability to the general public and provide confirmation that necessary actions are taking place, the investigations in this matter remain ongoing.

As such it is considered that disclosure of these records would likely prejudice the outcome and the result of the case and that this potential prejudice outweighs the public interest in favour of disclosure at this time.​

Internal Review Request

I am confused as to why the request was not possible due to Article 42 - Law Enforcement.

The request is for paperwork pertaining to an application to have my property listed with Jersey Heritage.

As far as I am aware there is no crime that has been committed, there are no offenders to be prosecuted , there is no tax or duty to be paid, no immigration issues, no prison issues and no involvement with Financial Services Commission.

Could you please provide me with a full explanation regarding the decision.

I also note “ Whilst disclosure of the information would support transparency, promote accountability to the

general public and provide confirmation that necessary actions are taking place, the investigations

in this matter remain ongoing.

As such it is considered that disclosure of these records would likely prejudice the outcome and

the result of the case and that this potential prejudice outweighs the public interest in favour of disclosure at this time”

Could you also advise me what investigations are ongoing

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 of the Cabinet Office be overturned and that documentation relevant to the original request could be supplied, however, in accordance with Article 12 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, it was concluded that the Department for Infrastructure and Environment (‘IE’) would be the better placed Scheduled Public Authority to assist with the provision of the requested data, so it was resolved that this case should closed by the Cabinet Office and that the Central Information Governance office would re-open the request with IE.