Investigation into voting for ferry tender process (FOI)

​​Request 684910406

​This is in response to FOI 682758055 

Please can you confirm in relation to your response to the above FOI; what investigation was undertaken by the government in response to the accusation against at least one other government employee by Mr Corrigan? Please provide any correspondence in relation to this.

Government officials have a duty of impartiality which is integral to public trust in the government and any alleged evidence to the contrary of this against other officials during this government process must have been investigated, especially given the accusation has come from another government employee.

If no investigation was undertaken please provide the rationale for this, and correspondence in reaching that decision.

Further please can you kindly confirm/provide the following:

- The governments code of ethics which would enforce the responsibilities of government employees against such actions that could lead to reputational, potential legal and financial implications and also the erosion of public trust and questions about the internal culture of the government

- What level of seriousness the government has implied on the actions of Mr Corrigan and any others guilty of the same action

- What disciplinary action has been taken against Mr Corrigan, and if none the rationale for this

Thank you,

Response

The Government of Jersey does not comment on individual contractual matters as this is personal information and would breach the privacy of the individuals concerned. Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

Article applied

Article 25- Personal information

(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. ​

​Internal Review Request  

The following questions could be answered without divulging any personal information should you so wish:

• What investigation was undertaken to the already public accusation made by Mr Corrigan?
• If no investigation was undertaken please provide the rationale for this?
• What level of seriousness the government has implied on the already public actions?
• Please supply the governments code of ethics which would enforce the responsibilities of government employees against such actions that could lead to reputational, potential legal and financial implications and also the erosion of public trust and questions about the internal culture of the government?

I do not understand how you have applied article 25 to the whole request.

Whilst I do not feel the original FOI has been dealt with correctly if this is required to be submitted via an internal review then please proceed. 

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?  Yes  

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? Yes

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately? Yes

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

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