In brief: A government whistleblower has told an employment tribunal that Jersey police improperly used the criminal justice system to serve their own interests by considering a criminal investigation into her disclosure of a recording of a controversial government meeting. Alison Renouf, who claims she was unfairly dismissed for raising child safeguarding concerns, argued that officers who attended the meeting could not have acted impartially. The States of Jersey Police say the correspondence amounted to routine preliminary considerations, and that no investigation was ever launched.
The recording that started it all
The case centres on a recording of a government meeting held in January 2025, at which senior police officers were present. That meeting became notorious after it emerged that police chief Robin Smith described the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry as a “noose round the Island’s neck.” The recording was subsequently disclosed by Ms Renouf, a government employee who says she was acting as a whistleblower over child safeguarding concerns.
The Jersey Evening Post reports that emails revealed then-Detective Superintendent Alison Fossey, who herself attended the January 2025 meeting, questioned why alleged data breaches arising from the disclosure had not already been referred for criminal investigation. Senior government officials had also discussed reporting Ms Renouf to police in what the JEP described as a bid to have her devices seized and prevent the recording from reaching the media.
Renouf’s case: a conflict of interest at the heart of policing
At the employment tribunal, Ms Renouf did not mince her words. “It was entirely improper for the police to be advising on criminal proceedings when they were potentially embarrassed by that recording,” she told the hearing. “It was in their interest that my devices were seized and that they got the recording back.”
She went further, telling the tribunal: “The police had no business being involved in those discussions, and it is entirely improper that they were. They were potentially using the criminal justice system to further their own ends.”
Ms Renouf also told the tribunal that she found it “very difficult to believe” that Chief of Police Robin Smith was unaware of Detective Superintendent Fossey’s actions, given that Fossey had herself been present at the meeting in question.
The core of her argument is straightforward and, it must be said, not without logic: officers who attended a meeting, the contents of which were embarrassing to them and their organisation, should not have been the ones advising on whether to pursue criminal action against the person who disclosed it.
Police response: routine considerations, nothing more
The States of Jersey Police pushed back firmly, insisting that the correspondence in question reflected nothing more sinister than standard policing practice. In a statement, the force said the emails reflected “routine preliminary policing considerations following concerns that confidential government information may have been disclosed without authorisation, potentially constituting an offence under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.”
The force noted that officers have a duty to consider whether alleged criminal offences warrant investigation, and that examining the potential evidential value of electronic devices is a routine aspect of such preliminary work. Crucially, it stressed that “no formal criminal complaint was received, no investigation was commenced, no devices were seized and no further investigative action was undertaken.”
The police statement concluded that “any suggestion that SoJP was seeking to prevent information reaching the media does not reflect the nature of these preliminary considerations,” and reaffirmed the force’s commitment to acting “independently, impartially and without fear or favour.”
For its part, the States Employment Board maintains that Ms Renouf was not dismissed for whistleblowing at all, but for gross misconduct involving a breach of confidentiality.
Source: Jersey Evening Post
