Government of Jersey

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 16 November 2009 regarding: P.104/2009 Comments - Committee of Inquiry: Files on States Members held by Jersey Police.

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2009-0104
Decision Summary Title :	Committee of Inquiry: confidential files held by the States of Jersey Police on States members and others (P104/2009) - comments		Date of Decision Summary:	13 November 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Committee of Inquiry: confidential files held by the States of Jersey Police on States members and others P104/2009 - comments		Date of Written Report:	13 November 2009
Written Report Author:	Minister for Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Comments on Deputy Higgins Proposition – P104/2009 Committee of Inquiry: Confidential files held by the States of Jersey Police on States members and others.
Decision(s): The Minister approved for presentation to the States of his comments on Deputy Higgins’ Proposition P104/2009, and requested that they be laid before the States.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Proposition relates to the States of Jersey Police, for which the Minister has political responsibility. Therefore he wishes to comment on the Proposition.
Resource Implications: There are no additional resource implications from the lodging of this comment. However, the Minister feels that the likely costs of an Inquiry, as proposed by Deputy Higgins would be in the order of £500,000.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to present the Minister’s comments to the States in time for the debate on the Proposition on the 17th November 2009.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

P.104/2009 Comments - Committee of Inquiry: Files on States Members held by Jersey Police

Committee of Inquiry: Confidential files held by States of Jersey Police on States Members and Others (P.104/2009)

COMMENTS

Although the heading of P.104 makes reference to “and others”, to date no evidence has been found of the existence of files or sections of files relating to anyone other than the Elected Members of the States of Jersey as of February 2006.

Although I do not object to the holding of an ‘in Committee’ debate as suggested, at an appropriate time, I would remind the Members of the States that I remain subject to a confidentiality clause in relation to certain potential disciplinary matters. Accordingly, the amount of information which will be available at the time of an early debate will be limited. Furthermore, any discussions which relate to any such disciplinary action must, by Law, be held in camera.

It is my opinion that the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry would be premature at this stage for the following reasons:-

(1) A process of investigation into Operation Blast has been started and is being conducted by the Wiltshire Police Force.

(2) That investigation will raise issues both as to whether any criminal offences have been committed and in relation to possible disciplinary issues relating to the police officers who were involved.

(3) It would be better if those issues were dealt with first before any Committee of Inquiry were to be established. Otherwise there is a danger of those issues becoming intermingled with the process of any Committee of Inquiry.

(4) An earlier date for the start of a Committee of Inquiry could prejudice both any criminal proceedings which might arise and any such disciplinary matters.

(5) In practice, if criminal proceedings arise then a transcript will be available of these and of any evidence presented thereat.

(6) In the eventuality of disciplinary proceedings arising which involve the Members of the States of Jersey they would then have access to a great deal of information.

(7) Any Committee of Inquiry which might be set up prior to the conclusion of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings would find itself going over the same ground as was being addressed by those proceedings.

(8) I believe that the best course is for any criminal or disciplinary proceedings to be allowed to run their course with the results thereof being made available to the Members of the States.

(9) If this course is followed, then the Members of the States will be better placed to determine whether there are any outstanding matters which should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry and the precise areas which should be covered by such an Inquiry.

(10) In the meantime I have commenced a review of the procedures and protocols being applied both by the States of Jersey Police and by the Customs and Immigration Department in relation to the handling of confidential information and intelligence. I will ensure that these are appropriate.

(11) Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the setting up of such a Committee of Inquiry would be premature at this time and should be left over to a later time.

The Proposition makes reference to the Inquiry costing in excess of £50,000. I believe that this is a great under-estimation and that the likely costs, if the Inquiry started now, would be of the order of £500,000. Such an Inquiry prior to any decision on criminal proceedings or any disciplinary matters would be much more expensive as there would be a necessity to provide any person who might be prejudiced by the outcome of the Inquiry with their own legal representation at public expense.

To summarise, there may well be a time when an Inquiry should be set up in order to inquire into particular matters but that time is not yet.

Accordingly, it is my intention to seek to persuade Deputy Higgins that discussion on this Proposition should be deferred until after any criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been completed.

If the debate proceeds, even in camera, I would strongly request Members to remember that in certain circumstances criminal proceedings may arise or that they may have a role to play in relation to disciplinary matters and to accordingly moderate any comments which they may make.