Case Ref: FS50072320
Date: 30/01/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant sought access to any documentation relating to the case of Dr David Kelly that had been considered by the BBC Board of Governors. The BBC identified four documents falling within the ambit of that request. Two of those documents were minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors, which were subsequently released to the complainant: the Commissioner considered that one sentence redacted from one of those sets of minutes had been correctly withheld under section 40 of the Act. The other two documents were papers prepared for the first of those two meetings. The BBC took the view that both of these papers were covered by the derogation and therefore outside the terms of the Act: the Commissioner accepted that view. However, he criticised the BBC for breaching sections 10 and 17 of the Act by not informing the complainant, within the timescale specified, either that information was being withheld from the set of minutes or of the relevant exemption concerned.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072320
Case Ref: FS50117628
Date: 31/01/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice) a copy of a review carried out by HM Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate into listing and case management in the Crown Court. The public authority took almost seven months to respond to the request during which time it was considering the public interest test in respect of the requested information. It eventually informed the complainant that it was refusing the request under section 36 of the Act and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that whilst the exemption was engaged the public interest favoured disclosing the information. The Commissioner found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to inform the complaint which exemption it believed applied to the requested information within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner also found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to inform the complainant of its decision on the public interest within such a time as was reasonable in the circumstances.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117628
Case Ref: FS50107765
Date: 30/01/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested the amount the BBC had paid for the rights to cover the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that this information falls within the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the BBC argued, without prejudice to its position on the derogation that the requested information was exempt on the basis of section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43 and has therefore ordered the BBC to disclose both the amount it paid for the rights to cover the Turin Olympics and also the total production costs the BBC incurred in producing its coverage of the games. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107765
Case Ref: FS50110031
Date: 29/01/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice (formerly Department for Constitutional Affairs)
Summary: The complainant requested the responses sent to MoJ regarding the implementation of the Human Rights Act within departments. MoJ refused to disclose the information under section 35 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 35 was not engaged as the information did not relate to the formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50110031
Case Ref: FS50085782
Date: 29/01/2008
Public Authority: Welsh Assembly Government (formerly the “National Assembly for Wales”)
Summary: The complainant requested details of subsidies paid to all farmers in Wales under the Common Agricultural Policy. The public authority initially refused the information citing the exemptions at sections 40 and 44 of the FOI Act or, in the alternative, the exceptions at regulations 12(3) and 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is ‘environmental information’ within the definition in regulation 1(1) and therefore the request should have been treated under the regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exceptions cited apply, and accordingly the public authority should now disclose the information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (3) – Complaint upheld, EIR 12 (5) (e) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085782
Case Ref: FS50111331
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning procedures in place within the public authority and how they had been applied to an investigation to which she was subject. The public authority initially cited various exemptions from Part II of the Act, but, following the intervention of the Commissioner, altered its stance and refused the request on cost grounds. The Commissioner accepts the cost estimate of the public authority in relation to some parts of the information request, but finds that it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act when initially refusing the request. In relation to the remaining parts of the information request, the Commissioner finds that these are for information constituting personal data of which the complainant is the data subject and that the exemptions provided by sections 40(1) and (5) apply. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111331
Case Ref: FS50119370
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: The Charity Commission
Summary: The complainant requested copies of legal advice and other information relating to an application made by it to the public authority for registration as a charitable institution. The public authority refused to release the requested information claiming that it was subject to legal professional privilege and was exempt under Section 42 of the Act. The public authority also claimed that the information contained personal data relating to a third party and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority has correctly applied section 42 of the Act in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner has therefore not considered whether the public authority was correct to withhold the information under section 40 of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0012 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50119370
Case Ref: FER0087774
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) (formerly the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI))
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for the advice given by civil servants to the Energy Minister in relation to the decision to grant permission for a wind farm to be built at Cefn Croes, Ceredigion, West Wales. DTI refused to disclose the information, relying on the exemption in section 36 of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the corrrect regime under which this matter should have been dealt with is the Environmental Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Regulations 5, 12, and 14 of the EIR 2004. The Commissioner found that under the EIR the exception at regulation 12 (4)(e) was engaged in relation to the information withheld under section 36 but that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exceptions in regulations 12 (5) (b), and 13 apply to some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the disclosure of advice given to the Minister subject to redaction of the information that can be withheld under regulation 12(5) (b) (The course of justice…), and regulation 13 (Personal data). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0087774
Case Ref: FS50090685
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The complainant requested a number of items relating to the maintenance of a caravan site owned by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the “Council”). The Council refused the request in its entirety, citing the exemption under section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council disclosed the majority of the information requested to the complainant. However, the Council maintained that section 43 applied to two items of requested information and further, that the appropriate limit would be exceeded if the Council was to respond to one of these requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council would not exceed the appropriate limit in responding to the remaining requests and further, that the information is not exempt under section 43. The Council is therefore required to disclose the remaining information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090685
Case Ref: FS50133288
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested a transcript of a reconvened inquest into the death of his son. The public authority told him that the official tapes of the inquest had not been transcribed but offered copies of the tapes to him. It agreed to waive the fee of £41 that would have applied. The complainant was unhappy with this outcome and complained to the Commissioner. Following an investigation, the Commissioner has determined that the tapes are held by the public authority solely on behalf of the Hertfordshire Coroner and not for its own purposes. Coroners are not designated as public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore their records are not subject to the information access regime of this Act. There is a separate information access regime for such records over which the Commissioner has no jurisdiction. However, the Commissioner has found that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under Section 1(1) of the Act because it did not formally deny that it held the information for its own purposes. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133288
Case Ref: FS50113234
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: Northern Ireland Court Service
Summary: On 29 November 2005 the complainant made a request to the Northern Ireland Court Service (“NICS”), for documentation, notes (handwritten, electronic or otherwise), telephone records received into and emanating from NICS in relation to emails and letters sent by the complainant. NICS claimed that they did not hold some of the information and applied section 36 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) and section 42 (1) to the remainder. The Commissioner finds that NICS did hold some of the information requested and have breached sections 1(1) (a), section 17 (3) (b) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) The Commissioner is satisfied that some of the requested information is exempt under section 42 of the Act and that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption in this case. The Commissioner finds that the section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) exemption is engaged in relation to remainder of the information. However, he finds that the public interest lies in the disclosure of the information and he requires NICS to disclose this. The Commissioner is also satisfied that some of the information is exempt information by virtue of section 21 as it is available to the applicant by other means.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50113234
Case Ref: FS50137528
Date: 28/01/2008
Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency (An Executive Agency of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs)
Summary: The complainant requested all the sales data for residential properties for a specified location. The Valuation Office Agency refused to disclose the information as to locate, retrieve and extract the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit and under section 12 of the Act it was therefore not obliged to comply with the request. The Valuation Office Agency found that some information could be provided within the cost limit but that this was exempt under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 12 did apply as to provide the information would exceed the cost limit. For the information which could be supplied within the cost limit the Commissioner found that section 44 was engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (5) (b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50137528
Case Ref: FS50100730
Date: 25/1/2008
Public Authority: Sussex Police
Summary: The complainant has been in correspondence with Sussex Police for several years in respect of issues he has had concerning his neighbours and their purported criminal acts against him. A large volume of correspondence has been exchanged between the complainant and the public authority and the requests are not concise. The Commissioner contacted the complainant to clarify what information remained outstanding and the following summary was agreed. Any crime reports the complainant’s neighbours had reported against him [the complainant]. Any correspondence Sussex Police had had with their Police Authority, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Police Complaints Authority, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Wealden District Council, a local Solicitors or a Councillor in respect of him. The Commissioner considers that the requested material is a combination of environmental and non-environmental information. The environmental information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) and the non-environmental information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Whilst there are procedural errors, which will be summarised below, the Commissioner considers that sections 40(1) and (5) of the Act and regulation 5(3) of the EIR apply and therefore the complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5(3) – Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50100730
Case Ref: FS50083381
Date: 21/1/2008
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The complainant sought disclosure of a contract agreed by the Department of Health for the provision of an electronic recruitment service for the NHS. The public authority initially refused to disclose the contract on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 41 (confidential information) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. It subsequently also sought to rely on sections 43(1) (trade secrets) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner determined that none of the exemptions were applicable to the contract and ordered that it be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 1 of the Act as, at the time of the request, it probably did not hold all of the contract and did not inform the complainant of this fact. In addition, it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that sections 43(1) and 44 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50083381
Case Ref: FS50139317
Date: 21/01/2008
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the interview notes and CVs of the other candidates for a job for which he was unsuccessful. The House of Commons refused to disclose this information on the basis that it was the personal data of the other candidates and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle; the House stated it was therefore exempt under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that the House was correct in its application of section 40 as the information is personal data and disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50139317
Case Ref: FS50099223
Date: 21 January 2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant requested film footage relating to Operation Cauldron, an exercise carried out by the Ministry of Defence (the ‘MOD’) in 1952. The information contained images of identifiable individuals, and the MOD argued that it would need to obscure or mask the faces of the individuals, as this information would be exempt under sections 38, 40(2) and 44 of the Act. The MOD estimated that the process of masking would exceed the cost limit as set out in section 12 of the Act, and therefore refused the complainant’s request. The Commissioner found that the footage did contain images of identifiable individuals, some of whom may still be alive, but that disclosure of the footage would not breach any of the data protection principles. For this reason the Commissioner found that the MOD wrongly applied the exemption under sections 38, 40(2) and 44, and the cost limit under section 12. The Commissioner therefore requires the MOD to disclose the footage in full.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 - Complaint upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50099223
Case Ref: FS50083202 and FS50134623
Date: 16/01/2008
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for full details, including receipts and invoices, of spending by Tony Blair, John Prescott, Gordon Brown, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy and Jonathan Sayeed during the year 2003 – 2004. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it is the personal data of the MPs concerned and that disclosure would be unfair and present a security risk. The Commissioner decided that although the information is the personal data of the named MP’s and a number of other third parties disclosure of some of the information would not be unfair and therefore would not breach section 40(2) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50083202 and FS50134623
Case Ref: FS50100137
Date: 16/01/2008
Public Authority: Law Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to exchanges between the public authority and Parliamentary Counsel in connection with specific work undertaken by the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36 and 42. The Commissioner finds that section 42 was applied correctly. As this decision relates to all the withheld information, the Commissioner has not reached a conclusion as to whether section 36 was applied correctly. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act in that it did not issue the refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt. This breach does not necessitate remedial action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50100137
Case Ref: FS50091818
Date: 16/01/2008
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant made a request to the public authority for information regarding complaints she had previously made against her local authority. The public authority refused the request under section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. It said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner has reviewed the information withheld from the complainant and has found that section 44 was correctly applied for the majority of the information. However the Commissioner has also found that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act by misapplying section 44 to the minority of the information not covered by the statutory prohibition.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Partially upheld, FOI 44 – Partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50091818
Case Ref: FS50130130
Date: 14/01/2008
Public Authority: Mersey Care NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested copies of five critical incident Reports from the Trust. Each of the reports referred to is the final report of an internal inquiry carried out by the Trust following a murder involving one of its patients. The public authority declined to provide the information on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 40(3)(a), 41 and 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the Public Authority’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(3)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has therefore not considered the other exemptions cited by the public authority. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130130
Case Ref: FS50073293
Date: 09/01/2008
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for a copy of the expenses claimed by Jim Murphy MP for the month of May, 2003. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was the personal data of the MP concerned and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner decided that although the information is the MPs personal data disclosure would not be unfair and therefore would not breach section 40(2) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50073293
Case Ref: FS50121245
Date: 09/01/2008
Public Authority: Sheffield City Council
Summary: The complainant requested correspondence between Urban Splash and the Council, as well as HMRC and the Council, on the issue of the ‘shell test’ and VAT in relation to the development of Park Hill. The Council refused to supply the information claiming that it was exempt under section 43 of the Act, in that the Council and Urban Splash’s commercial interests would be affected by its release. After the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council agreed that much of the information could be released and agreed to reassess the information and redact the information that it would be prejudicial to release. The Commissioner is satisfied with the Council’s redactions and believes that the remaining information engages the exemption. He is also satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the remaining information to be released. Therefore, the Commissioner requires that the Council release the information to the complainant after making the agreed redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121245
Case Ref: FS50169424
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Information Commissioner’s Office
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for the postcodes of all employees at the ICO. The ICO disclosed to the complainant the first half of the postcode but refused to disclose the second half under section 40(2) of the Act, ‘personal data’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information withheld is personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection and was therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50169424
Case Ref: FER0120148
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Council in connection with a planning application and disposal of open space relating to the Hunstanton Green / Pier Project. The request was declined by the Council on the basis that the information was subject to legal professional privilege and was therefore exempted under section 42 of the Act. After requesting a copy of the withheld information and further information about the refusal, the Commissioner concluded that although the requests should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the claim that the legal advice it obtained dated 24 January 2006 was subject to legal professional privilege nevertheless applied and that this information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(5)(b). However, in relation to other information, concerning the instructions to the external legal adviser (and the clarification of these instructions), the Commissioner found that the Council had waived its right to claim legal professional privilege. As a result the Commissioner concluded that this information was not exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) and that it should be released to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0120148
Case Ref: FS50067416
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (‘BBC’)
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC who the highest earner at BBC Northern Ireland was and the details of their salary. The BBC refused to disclose this information maintaining that it was exempt under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has reviewed the requested information and has decided that whilst it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act to disclose the exact salary of the highest earner, it would not be a breach of the Data Protection Act to disclose the pay band within which the highest earner fell along with their name. The complainant also requested information on the payments made to several named television presenters, and the costs of producing John Daly’s television show. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to this request because the information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemptions under section 40, section 43 and section 41 to withhold this information from the complainant. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the commissioner has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the information relating to payments to presenters are exempt by virtue of section 40 of the Act and that the information relating to programme costs is exempt by viture of section 43 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50067416
Case Ref: FS50072937
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (‘BBC’)
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC how much it cost to produce the show ‘Ask the Family’. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to this request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the Commissioner has concluded that the information was not held for the dominant purpose of journalism, art of literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 43 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072937
Case Ref: FS50085710
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (‘BBC’)
Summary: The complainant requested a range of financial information about the costs incurred in relation to BBC Northern Ireland. The BBC refused to disclose information about salaries of BBC staff on the basis that it was exempt on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has decided that whilst it would breach the Data Protection Act to disclose the exact salaries of the BBC employees concerned, disclosure of their respective salary bands would not. With regard to the remainder of the requested information, the BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that this information falls within the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that some of this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40 and 43, although some of this information is not exempt from disclosure and should therefore be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085710
Case Ref: FS50088977
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested the agreement leading to the reinstatement following suspension of a senior officer at the public authority. The public authority withheld this, citing sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority dropped its claim that section 38 applied. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 40(2) is not engaged as, whilst the information in question does constitute personal information, its disclosure would not breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 41 is not engaged as the information in question was not provided to the public authority from a third party. The public authority is required to disclose the information initially withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088977
Case Ref: FS50082127
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: The Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) (formerly Department of Trade and Industry (DTI))
Summary: The complainant made a request to the former Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for release of the information which led to the inclusion of Regulation 17 in the Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000. DTI refused to release the information relying upon the exemptions in sections 35 and 42 of the Act. DTI also sought to apply the exemption in section 36 in respect of one document after the Commissioner’s investigation had commenced. The Commissioner has examined the exempt information and is satisfied that the public authority has correctly applied the exemptions above. However the Commissioner finds, in respect of one document withheld under section 35(1)(a), that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure and accordingly orders release of it. Finally, the Commissioner found that DTI did not respond to the complainant’s request in compliance with sections 10 and 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Partially upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082127
Case Ref: FS50102198
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Summary: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) refused to allow the complainant access to information dating from 1973 to 1975 which related to the legal action by Mr Geoffrey Edwards against the General Electric Company/ Allied Electrical Industries concerning a contract with Saudi Arabia for an air defence system. In refusing the request, FCO relied upon the international relations exemption in section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner decided that in refusing the request, FCO had dealt with it in accordance with part I of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102198
Case Ref: FS50097518
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant made successive requests to the public authority for information relating to the Identity Cards Bill: the memorandum (and drafts) advising on European Convention of Human Rights obligations which were submitted to the Legislative Programme Committee of the Cabinet; background briefing papers for Ministers in response to amendments tabled by opposition parties at the Committee Stage; and similar information at the Report Stage. The public authority withheld the information, citing section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) for all of the requests; section 42 for the first and second requests; and section 36(2)(b)(i) for part of the second request. The Commissioner concluded that all of the information in the second request fell within section 35 so that section 36(2)(b)(i) was not engaged. He decided that the information in all three requests had been properly withheld under section 35(1)(a) because the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Since that was the case he did not go on to consider the application of section 42.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not Upheld; FOI 36 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50097518
Case Ref: FS50163927
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Information Commissioner’s Office
Summary: The complainant requested the job titles and wages of the five most senior staff members in the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO disclosed the job titles and salary bands to the complainant but refused to disclose the exact salary details under section 40(2) of the Act ‘personal data’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the ICO was correct to withhold the exact salary details under section 40 as disclosure would breach the first data protection principles. The Commissioner also found that the refusal notice breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld. FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50163927
Case Ref: FS50169424
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Information Commissioner’s Office
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for the postcodes of all employees at the ICO. The ICO disclosed to the complainant the first half of the postcode but refused to disclose the second half under section 40(2) of the Act, ‘personal data’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information withheld is personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection and was therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50169424
Case Ref: FS50111015
Date: 02/01/2008
Public Authority: Brighton and Hove City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information held in relation to the public authority’s alcohol policy. The Commissioner decided that one element of the request was not a valid request for recorded information under the Act. In relation to the remaining element of the request, the Commissioner found that the public authority did not hold the information. Whilst the public authority’s response to the complainant had not explicitly stated that the information was not held, the Commissioner does not now require the public authority to issue such a response, especially in light of his finding that the information is not held. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111015
Case Ref: FS50140872
Date: 02/01/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested from the public authority a document entitled ‘PREM 16/21’ referred to at the National Archives. The public authority withheld the information under section 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that there was insufficient prejudice to engage the exemption. He therefore required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140872
Case Ref: FS50082955
Date: 02/01/2008
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a draft report prepared by FIMBRA (Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association), a predecessor of the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA withheld the draft report under sections 43 and 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the application of these exemptions and found that FSA was correct to apply both of them. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0002 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082955
Case Ref: FS50150536
Date: 02/01/2008
Public Authority: Hampshire County Council
Summary: The complainant asked the council for information concerning the operations and finances of the River Hamble Harbour Authority.
The council withheld the requested information under s21 (accessible by other means), s12 (appropriate limit), s40 (personal information) and s31 (law enforcement). The Commissioner found that the council was not entitled to rely on s12 to withhold the information. He found that the council incorrectly applied the exemptions at s21, s31 and s40 to the information. A proportion of the information is exempt under s40. The Commissioner decided that the requested information should be released to the complainant after redaction of third party personal data.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 40 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150536
Case Ref: FS50157834
Date: 02/01/2008
Public Authority: Transport for London
Summary: The complainant requested the percentages upon which compensation settlements were made to residents of a specific road under the Land Compensation Act following the building of the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road. The public authority declined to provide the information by virtue of the exemption contained in section 40(2) and by extension section 40(3)(a). After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the public authority’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(3)(a).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50157834