Select a region
Police officers who were tied up in a civil dispute declined to allow their personal legal costs to be disclosed, despite being asked by senior members of law enforcement to do so, following a Freedom of Information Appeal decision which said the costs should be revealed.
The independent FOI Panel recently upheld an appeal made by a member of the public and recommended that the legal costs involved in defending several police officers should be disclosed due to it being in the public interest.
Home Affairs branded the decision “nonsensical” and said it was exploring options, noting there was no legal requirement to comply with a decision of the Panel.
This week the Committee has written to the Panel, again declining to reveal additional information because the costs are a private matter between the officers and the legal firms engaged by them – mostly because the officers themselves have declined.
Deputy Gavin St Pier, who has repeatedly scrutinised taxpayer support for police officers’ legal battles, asked parliamentary questions in the States this week seeking out the legal costs paid to legal firms Ferbrache & Farrell and UK-based THB Solicitors defending local officers.
In reply, Home Affairs President Deputy Rob Prow said the Committee didn’t know in respect of THB, and that those costs were likely related to regulatory matters, while costs generated between officers and F&F are a “confidential contractual matter”.
Writing to the Appeals Panel, Deputy Prow this week said: “We understand Senior Bailiwick Law Enforcement officers have engaged with the officers who have stated that they do not wish this confidential information to be disclosed. The Committee respects that position.
“We will not be releasing information that belongs to the individual officers who were actioned and noting that we are not obliged to find out information that we do not have.”
It had already been established that £255,000 from public sources was spent defending the officers - £5,000 from Home Affairs’ budget, and the remainder from the States’ Insurance Deductible Fund. All other costs, which won’t be revealed, were covered by the government’s insurer.
A couple who between them brought four claims against several serving police officers, including the Chief Officer of Police, had their case elevated from petty debts to the Royal Court last year.
It stems from an arrest in 2021 which both Rob Curgenven and his partner Lucia Pirito allege was unlawful. They subsequently made official complaints to the police and began pursuing legal action.
When it became clear that the legal costs would surpass the original claim - £12,000 – attempts were made to settle out of court. Eventually a Tomlin Order was made to stop the ongoing claims.
While officers defended the original claims directly, the States – after conversation with insurers – decided that because the officers were being taken to court over something that had happened in the course of duty, the financial cost of legal defence would be borne by the States of Guernsey.
These are answers delivered today by President of Home Affairs, Deputy Prow in Assembly today
— Gavin St Pier (@gavinstpier) May 22, 2024
It’s disappointing that the Committee are ignoring the Freedom of Information Panel, led by @advocategreen1 which determined that was in public interest to release costs information 1/3 https://t.co/60FfbyWAo4 pic.twitter.com/H1T1DWtjFE
Posting on social media, Deputy St Pier said the fact police officers had declined to reveal the information was “disappointing given they benefitted from publicly funded legal advice”.
He also said because much of the legal costs were paid through government insurance, these claims would affect the future premium rate. In other words, it will cost more.
Home Affairs published an official statement saying it is “deeply concerned about the politicisation of a prolonged court case whereby, in accordance with basic principles of justice, police officers defended themselves against legal claims from two members of the community.
“These officers have been subjected to a prolonged period of multiple complaints from a member of the community who the Royal Court described as having ‘an unfortunate habit of not accepting decisions because they do not comply with his wishes and a disproportionate response with reams of correspondence’.
It added that additional cost to taxpayers is being created through “regular and arguably vexations complaints from the same individual.
“Our Committee feels strongly that police officers do a very difficult job in often incredibly challenging circumstances. They deal with sensitive and volatile situations daily and, while we acknowledge that for some members of the community the police’s intervention is not welcomed, ultimately officers are duty bound to carry out their responsibilities.
“We continue to work on much needed reforms to the Police Complaints Law, which will address this alongside a range of other potential improvements to the current legislation. These reforms are intended to greatly improve the level of confidence in the police complaints process for officers within Guernsey Police and the wider community.”
Pictured: Guernsey Police Station.
Writing to the FoI Appeals Panel, chaired by ex-deputy and criminal defence lawyer Advocate Chris Green, Home Affairs set out why it couldn’t release any more information and said it “considers this matter to be closed.
“The Committee is unable to comply with the Panel’s direction without potentially compromising the police officers’ reasonable expectation of confidentiality and because some of the information is simply not known to the Committee.”
Home Affairs went on to say the panel did not set out enough information to the Committee about the grounds for appeal, were questioned on matters outside of its mandate, and the decision advising for additional information to be published was not explained sufficiently.
“The FOI process and Appeals procedure were not established to enable an individual to access information on a case specific basis to which they are not otherwise entitled. To do so is to potentially permit access to information of ‘personal’, rather than ‘public’ interest.
On specific costs paid to private firms, Home Affairs said: “Neither the Committee nor the States of Guernsey engaged THB’s services, incurred any legal fees with that firm, or paid any amounts in respect of any legal fees charged by THB Solicitors in relation to this litigation or any ancillary regulatory matters concerning the police officers.
“The Committee is not obliged to establish information which it does not have.
“Ferbrache and Farrell were retained by the individual officers. Therefore, the costs were incurred by them, but which the Committee and States of Guernsey were prepared to support.
“To the extent to which there may be public interest in the legal costs, that must inevitably be limited to the extent to which the costs were supported by the States of Guernsey and therefore public funds. This information is already in the public domain.
“The Committee does not consider that it can do any more to comply with the Decision without compromising the officers' reasonable expectation that costs that they incurred with Ferbrache and Farrell in defending actions brought against them personally should remain confidential to them.”
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.