The government has refused to release a “lessons learnt” report into the opening of a new mental-health ward.
Patients moved into Clinique Pinel in June 2024 after years of waiting for an upgrade for the “dilapidated” Orchard House in the wake of a critical mental-health service review.
The opening of the new acute adult mental-health facility was pushed back eight times from its original target date in 2022.
The Jersey Audit Office’s annual report referred to a “lessons learnt” document that had been developed following the £10m refurbishment.
It was said to have been provided to the government’s Corporate Portfolio Management Office “so that other projects can benefit from understanding what went well and what went less well”.
Express requested the document under the Freedom of Information Law, but the government said it would not be released because it had “not been finalised” and disclosure could affect commercial interests.
The response invoked two exemptions under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 – Article 35, covering the formulation and development of policy, and Article 33(b), relating to commercial interests.
Officials argued that publication of the draft report could inhibit “the free and frank exchange of views between officials and decision-makers” and undermine the “safe space” needed for policy development.
The government stated that release of the document could “distort public understanding” by presenting “incomplete or provisional information”, potentially leading to “misinformed debate and external pressure”.
The report added that the report contained “commercially sensitive material relating to organisation(s) and negotiations”, claiming that disclosure could reveal “sensitive details such as contractual terms and/or negotiation strategies” and harm both contractors and the government’s own negotiating position.
The response acknowledged that there is a public interest in “transparency and accountability”, particularly concerning policymaking and the use of public funds.
But officials concluded that “the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits” of disclosure.
The response claimed that premature disclosure could discourage parties from providing “honest views and feedback” in future policy work and might “generate misinformed debate”.
Officials added that publication of the draft report could “jeopardise the business relationship” with the contractor and invite “undue interference from third parties”.
Express plans to appeal the refusal.
