Home Affairs keen to stay mum on legal costs
Home Affairs has threatened to resist an appeals panel ruling that it should release the costs of paying private lawyers to defend a claim against police officers.
The committee has spent months refusing to disclose how much the States spent on legal bills fighting a claim of about £12,000, which was eventually settled after a deal was agreed with Robert and Lucia Curgenven, who alleged police officers had mistreated them.
An appeals panel set up under the States’ freedom of information code has ruled against Home Affairs’ decision to keep the payments secret and said it should provide the figure.
The panel said that Home Affairs correctly applied an exemption under the code but that the wider public interest demanded disclosure of the legal costs.
‘In addition to the general public interest in transparency and accountability, the panel considers that the prudent use of public funds, particularly where the amounts involved may be significant, engages the overriding of the exemption,’ said the appeals panel, which was chaired by former deputy Advocate Chris Green.
‘The panel and the code are non-statutory. However, the panel would expect that the code and its decisions in relation to appeals are followed.’
But Home Affairs president Deputy Rob Prow criticised the panel’s ruling and indicated that his committee could refuse to accept it.
‘We are very disappointed in the decision, which seems rather nonsensical given that the appeals panel acknowledged that we had applied an exemption correctly,’ he said.
‘We are taking advice and considering our options, noting also that the ruling isn’t binding.’
The legal costs paid to local firm Ferbrache and Farrell and UK firm THB Solicitors were initially requested under the freedom of information code in August, but the request was denied by Home Affairs in October.
Deputy Gavin St Pier tried to extract them. He has estimated that they were between £250,000 and £400,000 and has accused Home Affairs of concealing ‘embarrassing’ information.
The panel said that the committee failed to give sufficient consideration to whether it could claim an exemption from public interest. It rejected the committee’s claim for legal professional privilege.
Mr and Mrs Curgenven discontinued their case after agreeing terms with the States, which were sealed on court files not to be made publicly available.
Most of the States’ costs related to the payment of private legal advice to police officers, a practice which dates back to a 2011 court judgement which ruled that they were not employees but held public office.
The other members of the panel were Rachel Masterton, Advocate Simon Howitt, Susan Hardy and Advocate Ian Kirk.
