The complainant requested information relating to himself, the Tyldesley Diary and British Library’s internal management report on an incident involving the Tyldesley Diary. The British Library released some information and relied on the exemptions at sections 21, 31, 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 40(1), 40(2), 41, 42, 43 to withhold other information. The Commissioner identified that some of the withheld information was the complainant’s personal data and therefore requested the public authority to treat parts of the requests as subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. Upon further investigation, the Commissioner found that some of the withheld information was outside the scope of the requests and therefore considered the exemptions at sections 21, 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), and 40(2). The Commissioner finds that the British Library was correct to rely on the cited exemptions for the majority of the information but that four documents withheld under section 40(2) and 7 documents withheld under section 36(2)(c) are not exempt. The Commissioner also found procedural breaches of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0245 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld
Citations:
[2011] UKICO FS50351498
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.530806