FOCUS: Is Gov struggling with FOI… or do they just not want to tell you?

Is the government taking longer to answer Islanders’ questions because they are struggling to cope… or because they simply don’t want to reveal the answers?

Jersey’s data watchdog says the public is entitled to wonder just that, after uncovering persistent delays, inadequate searches and incorrectly applied secrecy rules, warning that “such practices risk creating a culture of defensiveness rather than openness”.

Information Commissioner Paul Vane made the unusually forthright comments in his newly published annual report on the operation of the Freedom of Information Law during 2025.

Introduced in 2015, Jersey’s Freedom of Information Law gives all Islanders the legal right to request information ranging from spending figures to photographs, emails and computer files, with authorities expected to reply within 20 days – although, in practice, this may sometimes be longer, as there is no official sanction for failing to meet the deadline.

While acknowledging that many public authorities demonstrate “a strong commitment to openness”, Mr Vane identified a series of recurring problems which had required intervention from his office.

These included “delays in responding to requests, inadequate searches for information, reliance on incorrect exemptions or the blanket application of exemptions”.

The Commissioner said persistent delays had been seen across a range of public authorities, sometimes as a result of resource constraints and competing pressures, but he stressed that “statutory obligations are not optional”.

Mr Vane blasted persistent delayed responses and withholding of information from the JOIC as “unacceptable” and said that this “does not demonstrate a culture of transparency or accountability”.

“It is not unreasonable for requesters to question whether extensions and backlogs reflect administrative difficulty or reluctance to disclose,” he said.

“Delays erode trust, and public confidence depends not only on the eventual release of information but on the assurance that it will be provided promptly and in good faith.”

Have they had a proper look everywhere?

The public getting answers on time was not the watchdog’s only concern, with JOIC also finding that public authorities sometimes simply had not searched thoroughly enough for the information Islanders had asked for.

He said investigations had uncovered authorities which “interpreted requests too narrowly” or failed to carry out thorough searches across relevant systems, departments, time periods and records.

“Where searches are incomplete, requesters are left with an inaccurate picture of the information held,” he warned. “Even where omissions are inadvertent, the perception can be damaging.”

In one real-life example, the Department for the Economy was told to go back and look again after an Islander sought information about the legal basis for establishing the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit.

The Commissioner agreed that an identified document could legitimately be withheld – but found that “inadequate searches had been carried out”, requiring the department to conduct further searches and issue a fresh response.

Secret… but for the right reasons?

The report also takes aim at how public bodies decide what Islanders are not allowed to see.

JOIC encountered cases in which exemptions allowing information to be withheld were applied incorrectly or too broadly – including occasions where several exemptions were deployed or the reason for withholding information changed later in the process.

“In some instances, exemptions were engaged without sufficient analysis or without proper consideration of the public interest test,” Mr Vane said. “In others, SPAs cited exemptions that were not applicable to the information requested.

“Such practices risk creating a culture of defensiveness rather than openness.”

Mr Vane had an even more pointed message about what the exemptions are there for.

“The public must be assured that exemptions are used to protect legitimate interests, not to shield institutions from scrutiny or embarrassment,” he said.

Now you see it…

One of the more extraordinary cases cited as an example in the report involved information disappearing altogether.

An Islander had asked for a copy of the Financial Investigation manual produced by the Economic Crimes and Confiscation Unit.

The Department for the Economy refused to disclose it and, ultimately, the Commissioner agreed that the exemptions it relied upon allowed the document to be withheld.

However, after the appeal had been submitted, the department deleted its electronic copies of the information, leaving only a master copy with the Law Officers’ Department.

The JOIC used the case as an example to emphasise that “information subject to a live appeal must not be destroyed and must be provided without delay”.

More Islanders now fighting back

Meanwhile, more Islanders are taking disputes over what they can – and cannot – see evenfurther, with the watchdog reporting an “exponential increase” in appeals since Jersey’s FOI Law came into force in 2015.

It was not simply a handful of prolific FOI enthusiasts or members of the media driving the trend either.

The regulator acknowledged that, while some individuals had generated multiple appeals over the years, this accounted for “only part of the increase”, with more matters also being appealed by first-time FOI requesters.

Thirteen new appeals reached the Commissioner during 2025, with eight still active at the start of this year – a tiny proportion of the 1,093 valid FOI requests received and responded to across Jersey’s public authorities during the year (less than 1.2%).

However, almost one in four Government decisions which were challenged ended up being overturned.

Of 65 requests escalated for an internal first review, 15 – or 23% – resulted in the original decision being reversed.

Will the public’s access to information get better?

There was some good news.

Mr Vane credited the Government’s Central FOI Unit with improved processes and response quality, as well as better engagement between his office and public authorities, though he did make clear that a well-functioning freedom-of-information regime ultimately depends on more than meeting deadlines and response rates.

“Transparency is not achieved solely through compliance with procedural requirements,” he said. “It hinges on a culture of openness, a commitment to accountability, and an understanding that access to information is a democratic right.”