Guernsey has lost the right to keep its correspondence with the UK parliament about resettling Syrian refugees secret following a landmark legal battle.
Controversial former politician Tony Webber had been pushing the UK Home Office for the release of correspondence relating to the Crown Dependencies’ discussions over how to handle the Syrian refugee crisis – including whether refugees should be welcomed to the islands.
But States officials from Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man warned that doing so would set a “dangerous precedent” by giving members of the public the right to an eye over all of their “sensitive” discussions with the UK.
Pictured: The Crown Dependencies feared that disclosing their discussions with the UK Parliament could set a "dangerous" precedent.
Mr Webber first made his request under the UK Freedom of Information Law in 2016 in order to gain correspondence relating to whether Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man should take part in a refugee relocation scheme.
The UK Information Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of disclosure, and yesterday it was announced that the Home Office and Crown Dependencies would not be allowed to appeal – something hailed by Mr Webber as a “victory for open and transparent government”.
“Hopefully those in senior positions in the Crown Dependencies governments will now refrain from using bogus constitutional arguments to prevent transparency, whether it be in the political or the financial sector… The issue should mean that a lot of questions should be asked of those in authority, especially about their judgement and potential conflicts of interest, let alone the costs involved to the taxpayers,” he added.
The judgment in Mr Webber’s favour detailed how Mr Tim Pitt-Payne represented the Attorneys-General of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man – all of which in a letter prior to the hearing had “emphasised the chilling effect that disclosure would have on future communications between the UK Government and the governments of the Crown Dependencies”.
Pictured: The Crown Dependencies had argued in a letter, which was rejected as evidence, that sensitive discussions like Brexit preparations could be jeopardised if a precedent was set through the ruling.
The written ruling also explained how the Home Office had aimed to appeal on the grounds that the tribunal that made the original order for them to disclose the information “erred in law” by focusing “solely or largely on whether the content of the withheld material was “controversial” rather than on the wider prejudice of disclosing such communications” and “reaching irrational conclusions when balancing the public interest”.
But each of their grounds was dismissed, with the ruling also stating that the Crown Dependencies’ joint letter could not be admitted as evidence because none of the jurisdictions had applied to become parties to the legal proceedings.
“As regards the wider issue of fairness, I do not consider that the resolution of this issue is in any way affected by the special constitutional position of the Crown Dependencies… The decision made has no implications for other FOIA requests which are made for information to be found in communications between departments of state of the UK Government and the relevant authorities in the Crown Dependencies. Each case will turn on its own facts and which qualified or absolute exemptions are in issue…
“For all those reasons, I refuse the Home Office's application for permission to appeal. For the same and the additional reasons set out above, I also dismiss the substance of the requests by the Attorneys General,” Judge of the Upper Tribunal Nicholas Wikeley concluded.
Read the full judgment by clicking here.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.