"Our" surveillance v "Their" transparency

Next week Charles Farrier of UK campaigning group NO-CCTV will be in Jersey to meet with the Scrutiny Panel looking at CCTV and Surveillance activities in this Island.

He will be speaking in public on Wednesday 18 September;

1)      CHOW discussion 1pm to 2pm at Church House, St Helier

2)      4pm at the Scrutiny hearing, Le Capelain room of the States Building

3)      From about 6pm until 8pm at Church House again to meet members of the Jersey Human Rights Group and for a public talk and discussion.

Although we are being watched and recorded more and more as we go about our various activities and the public and private Data files on us become ever more complex and far reaching – we have few rights to regulate or control the use of such information.

On the other hand, our government and other “official” organisations seem to maintain their own secrecy in spite of claims that “the public interest” might require greater clarity and transparency

Thus today for example “The Master of the Royal Court” (Advocate Thompson) refused to allow public access to a “directions hearing” being held and he relied upon the decision of Bailiff Bailhache in 2002 re JEP v Al Thani – that also featured this week in the court case decision re Stuart Syvret and the Data Protection Law etc.

The Judicial Greffe letter from “The Master” is copied below.

So Data and secrecy and our “right to know” are very live issues and the need for some local enlightenment was never more necessary.

Especially since there is a Jersey Law Society Disciplinary hearing taking place this week in private – whereas it is very likely that this will involve matters that are of great public interest and concern to many.

Yet contrarily, in the UK such “professional” disciplinary hearings are usually held in public and even those who belong to UK Professional bodies (such as nurses or veterinary surgeons etc) – but are employed in Jersey – are likely to be heard, in the UK, in public and to be fully reported (and discussed)  in the media.

As already flagged up on this site, Jersey Social Security Tribunals are usually kept private although they should be in public unless there is some pressing reason otherwise.

Scrutiny Panels have also retreated behind “Part A” secrecy standards during the current session of States government although the public were generally admitted to most of the “A” agenda in previous years and the world of politics did not seem to be harmed as a result. Why the need for secrecy now?

Complaints Boards hearings against the administration by States’ Departments are also generally supposed to be held in public although they do seem to slip by in private – especially if “a child” is in any way involved – on occasions.

Yet even UK Children’s Courts are now slowly being opened up to public scrutiny in some cases so that the public interest might be acknowledged and adhered to.

Furthermore, there is even a move now to televise some UK court cases alongside the proceedings of Parliament and Select Committees (similar to Scrutiny Panels)….

Bearing in mind too that so many “public” hearings in Jersey are held in buildings without adequate sound systems and minimal information to explain the proceedings to the general public (such as the names of judges) – so it is evident that REFORM has a long way yet to go in this Island.