JERSEY’S data watchdog has raised fresh concerns about central government influence and interference in freedom-of-information decisions – warning that individual departments must be allowed to decide what is released to the public “and them alone”.
Information Commissioner Paul Vane made the pointed intervention as he overturned a government decision to brand nine PFAS-related requests made under Jersey’s Freedom of Information Law by campaigner Paul Le Claire “vexatious” – the second time in days that the government has lost an information battle with Water Awareness Jersey, which calls for cleaner water and the removal of harmful contaminants.
The previous ruling saw Mr Vane order the government to disclose the locations of fields where biosolids containing low levels of PFAS had been spread, citing a “strong and compelling public interest” including potential risks to public health.
Both rulings come shortly after Mr Vane used his annual report to warn the government that its persistent delays in answering the public’s requests for information, inadequate searches and incorrectly applied secrecy rules risked creating a “culture of defensiveness rather than openness”.
In his latest decision, Mr Vane said there was evidence suggesting that the decision concerning Mr Le Claire’s requests may have been made centrally rather than by civil servants in Infrastructure and Environment, the public authority legally responsible for answering them.
He said he was “concerned by the suggestion” that decisions were being made by, or influenced by, the Central FOI Unit within the Cabinet Office, which was established in 2022 to provide advisory support to ministers and help lead policy development across government.
Mr Vane said the Office was supposed to perform an “administrative and advisory role only and the FOI Law is very clear that it is for the relevant scheduled public authority [in this case, the Infrastructure and Environment Department] to respond to a request that has been submitted to it”.
The Commissioner continued: “That is a positive duty which it should carry out without influence from any other entity and this is not the first decision notice issued by the Commissioner which has had cause to refer to the Central Unit’s involvement in having played a more substantive role which has led to adverse consequences for the relevant scheduled public authority.”
It added: “The Commissioner is not aware of any legal basis upon which the Central Unit is able to control or influence a scheduled public authority in the exercise of its legal obligations and in case there is any lingering doubt, the Commissioner wishes to make his views very clear which is that any and all decisions relating to requests made by individuals under the FOI Law must be dealt with by the appropriate scheduled public authorities and decisions must be made by them – and them alone.
“This includes deciding whether or not a request is vexatious and providing advice and assistance to a requester.”
His comments mirror the government’s own published guidance, which states that the Central Unit supports departments and provides advice, but that decisions over what to release should fall to each public authority individually.
In upholding Mr Le Claire’s appeal against a decision to treat nine requests concerning PFAS contamination as “vexatious”, Mr Vane found the department had failed to demonstrate that Mr Le Claire had no genuine interest in the information or was motivated by an illegitimate purpose.
Mr Le Claire said: “These were legitimate questions about matters I was investigating and information I wanted to understand.
“To have nine of them collectively treated as ‘vexatious’ was a serious matter, particularly given the way my purpose and conduct were characterised.”
He added: “The Commissioner found that I had a real interest in the information. He found no improper motive, no evidence of harassment or distress, and described my correspondence as appropriate in both tone and content.”
The government has been ordered to reconsider the requests and issue fresh responses within 35 days, although it can appeal to the Royal Court.
Mr Vane’s recently published annual report found recurring problems in how public requests for information are handled, including exemptions being incorrectly or too broadly applied.
Almost one in four government decisions challenged at internal review during 2025 was overturned.
In one case highlighted by the watchdog, a government department deleted electronic copies of information after an appeal over its disclosure had begun, prompting a warning that material subject to a live appeal must not be destroyed.
It is the latest in a string of concerns about central involvement in FOI responses dating back several years.
The government said at the time that it remained the responsibility of relevant departmental officials to finalise responses.
Meanwhile, ministers are considering changes to the FOI regime following a review which recommended, among other measures, changes to the part of the law dealing with vexatious and repeated requests. A review was announced last year by Deputy Chief Minister Tom Binet, who claimed that public FOI requests cost the taxpayer around £1 million per year.
Mr Le Claire said: “Before government considers strengthening its ability to refuse people’s questions as vexatious, we need to understand exactly how that power is being exercised now.”
The government said it was unable to comment until the Infrastructure Minister had been briefed.
