Grant Appraisals (Jersey Heritage Trust) and Ministerial Decisions  

​Request 847080783       ​

1. Could you please supply copies of all grant appraisals for all payments to Jersey Heritage between 2021 - 2026. 
2. Could you please supply copies of all Ministerial Decisions relating to allocations of cultural funding between 2021 - 2026 including dates of decisions and officer recommendations 

Response  

1. The requested information is exempt under the following articles of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011:

Article 26

Article 33b 

2. Ministerial Decisions are published on statesassembly.je therefore Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

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 26 - Information supplied in confidence 

Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it was obtained by the scheduled public authority from another person (including another public authority); and

(b) the disclosure of the information to the public by the scheduled public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person. 

Article 33 Commercial interests 

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person

 (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test
Article 33 (b) is a prejudice-based exemption. That means that to engage this exemption there must be a likelihood that disclosure would cause prejudice to the interest that the exemption protects. In addition, this is a qualified exemption, and consideration must be given to the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) considers that providing information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Government of Jersey and / or third parties. There may be public interest in the commercial information, however it was considered that this is outweighed by the potential for commercial and or financial damage.

Internal Review Request

Subject: Request for internal review — FOI request 847080783

04/08/2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request an internal review of the response to FOI request 847080783 which I received on 15 July 2026 (the “Request”).

The Request sought:

1. Copies of grant appraisals for payments to Jersey Heritage between 2021 and 2026 (the “Grant Appraisal Request”); and

2. Copies of Ministerial Decisions relating to cultural-funding allocations in that period, including the dates of decisions and officer recommendations (the “Ministerial Decision Request”).

The Response rejected the Request on the purported basis that:

1. As regards the Grant Application Request, the information was both: (1) supplied in confidence and thus exempt under Article 26 of the 2011 Law; and (b) qualified exempt under the provisions of Article 33(2) of the 2011 Law because to disclose it might prejudice the commercial interests of someone; and

2. As regards the Ministerial Decision Request, the information is available from another source (said to be: statesassembly.je) and therefore exempt under Article 23 of the 2011 Law.

I ask that an internal review be conducted into the Request and the Response. I request that the internal review should be conducted by an officer of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision.

Grant Appraisal Request

The Response withholds all grant appraisals for the years requested under Articles 26 and 33(b) of the 2011 Law. It does not, however, give sufficient reasons to show why either exemption applies to each and every appraisal, or why partial disclosure was not possible.

Article 26 — information supplied in confidence

Article 26 applies only where the information was obtained from another person and disclosure would give rise to an actionable breach of confidence. The Response does not identify:

1. Which parts of the appraisals were obtained from another person;

2. The person or body said to owe the confidence;

3. The information said to be confidential; or

4. Why disclosure would be an actionable breach of confidence.

Please reconsider whether Article 26 applies to each document, and to each part of it. In particular, the internal review should distinguish material supplied by a third party from the Government’s own analysis, assessment, recommendations, and decisions.

Article 33(1)(b) — commercial interests

Article 33(1)(b) is a qualified exemption. The Response makes only a general assertion that disclosure could prejudice the commercial interests of the Government and/or third parties. It does not identify the relevant commercial interest, explain the nature of the likely prejudice, or explain why that prejudice is likely to arise from disclosure of these particular records.

Please reconsider whether there is a real and evidenced likelihood of prejudice for each document or category of information. The internal review should also consider whether any sensitivity has reduced because the appraisals are historic.

Public Interest

There is a strong public interest in disclosure. The records concern the assessment, allocation, and oversight, of public money supporting public heritage services. Disclosure would help the public understand the criteria applied, the evidence considered, the recommendations made, and the basis on which funding was approved.

If any genuinely confidential or commercially sensitive material remains exempt, please disclose the remainder of each appraisal with only the necessary redactions. A complete refusal should be used only where no meaningful part can be disclosed.

Ministerial Decision Request

The Response says that Ministerial Decisions are published on statesassembly.je and relies on Article 23, which applies where information is reasonably available to the applicant by other means. Article 23(2) requires the authority to make reasonable efforts to tell the applicant where the information can be obtained.

The Response provides only a general website reference. I have been unable to identify published Ministerial Decisions relating to the funding allocations requested. Please provide, for every decision relied upon:

1. The decision reference number;

2. The date;

3. The Minister or decision-maker;

4. A direct link or precise publication reference; and

5. Confirmation that it relates to the relevant allocation of cultural funding.

If the information cannot be identified through those references, it is not reasonably available to me for the purposes of Article 23. It should therefore be considered and disclosed under the Law, subject only to any properly applied exemption.

The Ministerial Decision Request also expressly sought officer recommendations. The Response does not say whether these records have been identified, whether they are included in any published Ministerial Decision, or

whether an exemption is relied upon for them. Please confirm this and, if any recommendation is withheld, identify the exemption relied upon and give document-specific reasons.

Searches and requested outcome

Please also review the adequacy of the searches undertaken. In particular, please confirm that searches covered records of grant appraisals, officer recommendations, Ministerial submissions, and decisions relating to the relevant allocations.

I request that the internal review:

1. Reassess the application of Articles 26 and 33(1)(b) to the grant appraisals on a document-by-document basis;

2. Disclose all non-exempt material, using redaction rather than withholding whole documents where practicable;

3. Provide precise links or references for each item said to be available under Article 23, or otherwise process it for disclosure;

4. Confirm the outcome of searches for officer recommendations and address those records separately; and

5. Provide clear reasons for any information still withheld, identifying the exemption and the basis on which it applies.

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?

Option 1: Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was partially upheld. Some parts have been amended

Following the internal review process the response has been amended as follows.

In the original response to question 1 the SPA applied Articles 23 and 33 of the Freedom of Information Jersey (Law) 2011. On reflection Article 3 should have been applied as although ministerial decisions are published as suggested. There have been no documented decisions on this specific matter either held or published. Therefore, a more appropriate response should have been that the requested information was not held. Therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information Jersey (Law) 2011 has been applied and the use of Article 23 removed.

Article 33 has been upheld but the panel felt it would be useful to provide a more detailed public interest response and that is covered below.

Public Interest Test: Article 33(b) Commercial Interests

The Government of Jersey has considered whether the information requested at Question 1 should be disclosed or withheld under Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, which provides an exemption where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including a public authority and its commercial partners.

The requested grant appraisals contain detailed information relating to Jersey Heritage's operations, financial planning, funding requirements, business activities, and assessments undertaken as part of the grant evaluation process.

Factors Favouring Disclosure

• Disclosure would promote openness and transparency regarding the allocation and use of public funds.

• Disclosure would support accountability in relation to grants awarded to publicly funded organisations.

• It would contribute to informed public debate concerning cultural funding and government expenditure.

Factors Favouring Maintaining the Exemption

• The grant appraisal documents contain commercially sensitive information relating to Jersey Heritage's financial position, operational plans, strategic objectives, and business activities.

• Disclosure could prejudice Jersey Heritage's commercial interests by revealing information that may be of value to other organisations operating within the heritage, cultural, tourism, and visitor attraction sectors.

• The release of detailed appraisal information could undermine Jersey Heritage's ability to negotiate effectively with commercial partners, suppliers, sponsors, donors, and funding bodies.

• Disclosure may inhibit the provision of full and candid information during future grant appraisal processes, reducing the effectiveness of funding assessments and decision-making.

• There is a public interest in ensuring that organisations seeking public funding can provide commercially sensitive information to government with a reasonable expectation that genuinely sensitive information will be protected where disclosure would cause prejudice.

• There is a public interest in ensuring that the Government of Jersey has suitable governance procedures in place to assess and appraise an organisations suitability for public funding.

Balance of the Public Interest

The Government recognises the significant public interest in transparency surrounding the allocation of public funds. However, it is considered that disclosure of the grant appraisals would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Jersey Heritage by revealing commercially sensitive information relating to its operations and future plans.

While transparency is served to some extent through the publication of funding allocations and related decisions, the release of the detailed appraisal documents would cause a greater degree of commercial harm than the public benefit that would arise from disclosure.

Conclusion

Having weighed the competing public interest factors, it is concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.