Protection of Whistleblowers in Jersey: Report and draft Law

A written Ministerial Report on the introduction of a new Whistleblowing Law has been presented to Jersey’s States Assembly. The Report appends a draft of the new Law and asks for comments from interested parties for the incoming Minister for Social Security to review in July 2026.

This offers the first glimpse of a new protected disclosure regime for the island. It follows the recommendations made by the Employment Forum (a non-governmental body) in June 2025, and signals the current government’s desire to move forward with those recommendations.

The Report states that the intention is to create for Jersey a straightforward and uncomplicated statutory whistleblowing process. There are a number of important points of detail in the draft Law that will require careful consideration. Key points are likely to include the following.

1.  Scope of protection

As in other jurisdictions, the draft Law would define the types of ‘wrongdoing’ about which a person may blow the whistle and receive protection. The definition would include, for example, the commission of a criminal offence or a failure to comply with the law, or a concealment of such matters. Notably, the draft Law would extend such wrongdoing to matters occurring outside Jersey as well as within this jurisdiction.

Further, a protected person could be an employee raising concerns about their employer, but could also be a person working for or providing contracted services to another person or body. This approach would apply the Law beyond the linear boundaries of the traditional employee and employer model, reflecting the reality of many service provision arrangements centred in Jersey.

In addition to an individual who has raised concerns directly, the draft Law would also apply to individuals who may have expressed an intention to blow the whistle or encourage someone else to do so, or who has given information about a protected disclosure. It is immediately clear, therefore, that the impact of the draft Law would require careful analysis both in principle and in practice.

2.  Duties of ‘receivers’

Another striking feature of the draft Law is that it would impose express duties upon a party receiving a protected disclosure.

Such ‘receivers’ would be prescribed in the draft Law, as a condition to a particular concern being deemed a protected disclosure. In addition to the relevant employer or recipient of services, the prescribed list would include government and statutory agencies. In limited circumstances, a person might also be protected after raising their concern with the media. That scheme of the draft Law would again reflect the position adopted in other jurisdictions.

The draft Law goes on to prescribe steps that the receiver ‘must’ take in response to a concern being raised with them. However, as the Report makes clear, the draft Law would not include any sanction for a failure to take such steps – albeit that the States would have power to pass supplementary Regulations on this issue if it saw fit.

3.  Claims and remedies

As expected, the draft Law would create the ability for a person to bring proceedings in the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal for a breach of the whistleblowing framework.

Claims could be brought against a respondent body or individual. A body could be liable vicariously for the acts of its employees or agents, although the draft Law would create a defence for a body that shows that it took ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent such acts. That provision would rest heavily on the extent and quality of training provided by a body and its policies and procedures.

A person bringing a claim would argue that they had been treated, or threatened to be treated ‘less favourably than others’ as a result of their protected disclosure. The financial remedy for such a claim would be capped at £30,000, comprising financial loss and an element of hurt and distress, equivalent to unlawful discrimination claims.

For employees, there would be an ability to claim that their dismissal was ‘automatically unfair’ because their protected disclosure was the reason or the main reason for the termination of their employment. This would create additional liability under the existing unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.

In each case, the protections afforded under the draft Law would apply at any time during the relevant relationship. i.e. without a qualifying period. In the employment context, therefore, the protections would be ‘day 1’ rights applicable from the start of their employment.

Next steps

The Mourant team will be responding to the Report and the draft Law and would be happy to collate any wider comments.

The Report and draft Law can be accessed here and comments can be provided directly to [email protected].

To discuss any aspect of these proposals, please reach out to any of the team on this page or your usual Mourant contact.