Category: Information

The Applicant and Aberdeenshire Council: SIC 29 Nov 2019

The Council was asked for information relating to the number of requests for contract changes under the Worksmart process.
The Council responded, providing information that it believed fell within the scope of the request. The Applicant was dissatisfied as he believed the information he had been given by the Council was incorrect and other information was held.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had complied with FOISA in responding to the request. The Council interpreted the request reasonably and took adequate, proportionate steps to establish what information it held.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 172 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.646106

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government) FS50594675: ICO 26 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between a named individual and HMRC. He has also asked for a copy of a particular internal review conducted by HMRC in 2012. HMRC has neither confirmed nor denied whether the requested information is held citing section 44(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 44(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50594675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555946

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government) FS50589287: ICO 26 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information from HMRC about the automatic backdating of tax credits and about HMRC’s discrimination in that respect. HMRC refused the request stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not a valid request for information because it does not meet the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 8: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50589287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555945

The Royal Mint (Other): ICO 22 Sep 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to themes considered for commemorative coins issued by the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA were correctly engaged by the public authority. However, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information referred to as ‘the disputed information’ in the body of this notice. He further finds the public authority in breach of sections 17(1)(b), 17)(3)(b) and 17(7) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the disputed information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570885

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555849

Wrexham County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information regarding the numbers and location of Give Way signs installed or replaced by Wrexham County Borough Council since 2007. The Council informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. He does not therefore require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580990

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555870

Wye Valley NHS Trust (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 23 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information from Wye Valley NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) about the legal and contractual basis for agreements reached with Mercia Healthcare. The Trust has applied the exemptions under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) to the only information that it says that it holds and which is relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Trust has identified all the information that it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Trust has incorrectly applied section 36 to this information. The Trust has correctly applied section 41 to a small amount of the information but incorrectly applied this exemption to the remainder. The Commissioner also considers that the Trust did not fully meet its obligations under section 17(1). The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose all the information it has withheld under section 36(2)(c) and section 41, having redacted the small amount of information that is exempt under section 41 as identified in the confidential annex. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555871

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 21 Sep 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for copies of eight documents it held concerning peaceful nuclear explosions. After some delay, the MOD complied with the request withholding some information on the basis of sections 24(1), 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), and 40(2) of FOIA. However, despite upholding the application of these exemptions at the internal review stage the MOD also argued that it should have refused to comply with the request from the outset on the basis of section 14(1) because complying with it was so burdensome. The MOD confirmed that it was now seeking to belatedly rely on this provision of the legislation to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1). He does not require the MOD to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578749

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555823

Rural Payments Agency (Central Government): ICO 2 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) for information relating to an application made for a holding number on his land. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RPA holds no recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the RPA to take no steps.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0583510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555852

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Central Government): ICO 29 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information held by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) relating to its policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). OFMDFM disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM was entitled to rely on the exemptions claimed. No steps are required.
FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555837

Lambeth London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information about a ballot vote on the proposed transfer of a housing estate. London Borough of Lambeth initially stated that the information was held by a third party and compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA. At the internal review stage, the Council reviewed its position and provided the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50429712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.529928

Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (Central Government): ICO 29 Sep 2015

The complainant requested information relating to a bid made by the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure in respect of its sports stadia programme. The Department provided some information but refused the remainder under regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on the exceptions cited, but that the public interest lay in favour of disclosing some of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the Department failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information specified at the attached schedule. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 9(2)(a): Upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Partly upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Partly upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Partly upheld EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 14(3): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0569788

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555791

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 17 Sep 2015

The complainant requested peer review documents carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP) following the death of a benefit claimant. The DWP refused the request under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as disclosure was prohibited by section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (the SSAA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP is entitled to refuse the requested information under section 44 of the Act. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555790

Ascham Homes (Education (Other)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested building permission for a specified address from Ascham Homes, which is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (‘an ALMO’) that manages housing stock owned by the London Borough of Waltham Forest (‘the council’). The ALMO responded that the information was not held, which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the ALMO does not hold the requested information. However, in failing to provide a response within the time for compliance, the ALMO breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0082 dismissed.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50542829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555160

Staffordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 4 Jun 2015

The complainant made three requests to Staffordshire Police for information relating to reports concerning Child Sexual Exploitation. Staffordshire Police refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police applied section 12(1) of the FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. However, the Commissioner also finds that Staffordshire Police failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to take reasonable steps to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining their requests to bring them within the cost limit. Staffordshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555529

Royal Parks (Other): ICO 29 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested the percentage given to The Royal Parks (‘TRP’) from the sale of Christmas trees at Bushy Park. TRP refused to provide this citing section 43(2) (commercial interests exemption). It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, there was some uncertainty as to whether TRP actually held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TRP holds the requested information and cannot rely on section 43(2) as a basis for withholding it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50574706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555850

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (Central Government): ICO 21 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested all advice received by the Shareholder Executive between 1 July 2013 and 15 October 2013 regarding the choice of a share price for the Royal Mail share offer. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) initially applied Section 36(2)(b) of FOIA to withhold all the requested information. In subsequent correspondence with the Commissioner the Department also applied Section 43(2) to all of the withheld information and Section 41 to parts of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills was entitled to withhold all of the information held within scope of the request on the basis of Section 36(2)(b) of FOIA. He therefore does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50540219

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.555914

A and General Teaching Council for Scotland: SIC 6 Feb 2006

Request for information relating to a complaint about a teacher – section 34(3) information obtained from confidential sources for the purposes of an investigation – section 38(1)(a) personal data of which the applicant is the data subject – section 38(1)(b) personal data of third parties where disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 020 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.434514

Keown and West Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 1 Feb 2006

Request for policy on absence from nursery education – request made to authority’s online forum – no response received within 20 working days contrary to section 10(1) – request for review made – authority responded and advised it did not hold the information requested – section 17(1) notice issued

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 013 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.434518

Mackenzie and Scottish Executive: SIC 30 Jan 2006

Requests for all information held by the Minister for Justice and the Access to Justice Division of the Scottish Executive which relates to Mr Mackenzie – whether exempt under section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – personal information

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 009 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.434507

A and University of Glasgow: SIC 13 Aug 2008

Mr A requested information relating to an Internal Audit Committee meeting from the University of Glasgow (the University). The University provided most of the information requested by Mr A but redacted certain documents on the basis that the redacted information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of either section 33(1)(b) or 38(1)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr A accepted the University’s application of section 38(1)(b) but remained dissatisfied with the University’s application of section 33(1)(b) and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was not satisfied that disclosure of the information would prejudice the relevant service provider’s commercial interests substantially and therefore found that the University had failed to deal with Mr A’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by incorrectly applying section 33(1)(b) of FOISA. He required the University to release the information to Mr A.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 097 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.434193

Dr R and Glasgow City Council: SIC 14 Feb 2006

Request for information relating to the whereabouts of the applicant’s daughter – notice that information is not held – section 17 – content of certain notices – section 19 – personal data relating to third parties – section 38(1)(b)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 025 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.434509

Leave.Eu and Eldon v Information Commissioner: UTAA 8 Feb 2021

The Information Commissioner issued Leave.EU and Eldon with both monetary penalty notices and assessment notices (and an enforcement notice in the case of Eldon) under DPA 1998 and 2018 – the First-tier Tribunal dismissed all five appeals – Appellants’ grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerned the scope of regulation 22 PECR, the meaning of `consent’ and `instigates’, the criteria for making a MPN (`serious contravention’ and knowledge of risk of breach), the relevance of the Commissioner’s regulatory action policy (RAP), proportionality and the criteria for an assessment notice, and unfair process – All five appeals dismissed by Upper Tribunal.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 26 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.659499

Commissioner of The Police of The Metropolis v The Information Commissioner; Rosenbaum: UTAA 7 Jan 2021

1. The decision of the Upper Tribunal in Corderoy v Information Commissioner [2017] UKUT 495 (AAC);[2018] AACR 19 at paragraphs 55-57 and 62 was inconsistent with the decision in APPGER v Information Commissioner and Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2015] UKUT 377 (AAC); [2016] AACR 5 and is wrong in law.
2. In deciding for the purposes of section 23(5) Freedom of Information Act that information revealed by a confirmation or denial did not relate to a section 23(3) body, the FTT wrongly applied Corderoy and added an unlawful gloss to the statutory words by asking whether Parliament intended that the absolute exemption should apply. In doing so the FTT made a series of further errors.
3. The FTT wrongly concluded that section 23(5) did not apply to information which was in the public domain but had not been officially confirmed, and in any event erred in concluding that the information in the present case was in the public domain. The FTT’s approach as to what was in the public domain also affected its decisions that the qualified exemptions relied on did not apply.
4. The Upper Tribunal remade the decision to the effect that pursuant to section 23(5) the duty to confirm or deny did not arise.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 5 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.659494

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 17 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information on fees paid by the public authority to Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD) for residential care and representations from LCD to the public authority on increases in fees paid for social care provided to them. The public authority stated that some information was not held and provided the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on balance he is satisfied the information requested in the first part of the request is not held by the public authority and he requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50577598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.555848

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 10 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) information exchanged between Cheshire Academies Trust (including their solicitors {name redacted}) and the Schools Complainants Unit regarding case number (redacted). The DfE dealt with the request as a business as usual enquiry and disclosed the requested information to the complainant with some redactions in excess of 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE should have dealt with the request under the FOIA and responded to the complainant promptly and in any event within 20 working days. As the DfE failed to do this the Commissioner finds that it breached section 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. As the DfE has now disclosed the requested information to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50592397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.556690

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice) FS50490450: ICO 23 Jul 2013

The complainant has made three information requests relating to a criminal case. As the information requested all relates to the same investigation the Commissioner has considered the requests in the same decision notice. The public authority has withheld the requested information citing the exemptions in sections 30(1)(c), 40(2) and 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has found that it was correct to withhold the requested information; he requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490450

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.528439

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice) FS50487238: ICO 23 Jul 2013

The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about the authority on which the CPS made a decision not to prosecute. The Commissioner’s decision is that CPS responded in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50487238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.528437

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2014

The complainant made a 56-part information request to CPS relating to a criminal conviction against him and asked CPS to bear in mind that there were connected appeals pending at the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. The Commissioner’s decision is that CPS has complied with FOIA and applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption correctly. The Commissioner does not require CPS to take any further steps to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50517505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.527554

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)) FS50551403: ICO 3 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information about the record management policies of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA refused to comply with the three related requests as it considered them to be vexatious under section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious and that the MHRA does not need to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551403

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.555115

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice) FS50490445: ICO 23 Jul 2013

The complainant has made three information requests relating to a criminal case. As the information requested all relates to the same investigation the Commissioner has considered the requests in the same decision notice. The public authority has withheld the requested information citing the exemptions in sections 30(1)(c), 40(2) and 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has found that it was correct to withhold the requested information; he requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.528438

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice) FS50496500: ICO 23 Jul 2013

The complainant has made three information requests relating to a criminal case. As the information requested all relates to the same investigation the Commissioner has considered the requests in the same decision notice. The public authority has withheld the requested information citing the exemptions in sections 30(1)(c), 40(2) and 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has found that it was correct to withhold the requested information; he requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50496500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.528443

G v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 14 Dec 2011

Identity and relationship of decision-makers – Mr G requested from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) information as to whether a named person was personally acquainted with certain decision-makers and/or members of the SLCC board, and also the identities of those involved in making a particular decision. The SLCC did not respond and Mr G wrote to the SLCC requiring it to carry out a review. Following a review, as a result of which the SLCC responded to the effect that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the first request and considered the second request to be vexatious, Mr G remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SLCC did not hold any information falling within the scope of Mr G’s first request. He also accepted that the second request was vexatious and that, by virtue of section 14(1) of FOISA, the SLCC was not obliged to comply with it.
However, the Commissioner also found that in failing to provide a response to Mr G’s request within 20 working days, the SLCC breached section 10(1) of FOISA. He did not require the SLCC to take any action in relation to this failure.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 246 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1(1) 1(4) 1(6)

Scotland, Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451557

Rule v Scottish Ministers: SIC 13 Dec 2011

Correspondence with named individuals – Mr Rule requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) all information held by the First Minister’s Office contained in correspondence with any one of a list of 19 named people. The Ministers failed to respond and Mr Rule requested a review. Following the review, when the Ministers responded by stating that Mr Rule’s requests were invalid, Mr Rule remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had failed to deal with Mr Rule’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by incorrectly concluding that the requests did not fulfil the requirements of section 8(1) of FOISA. He was satisfied that the requests met those requirements and were therefore valid. Consequently, he required the Ministers to review their handling of Mr Rule’s information requests, and notify him of the outcome of that review.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 245 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451555

Cherbi v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 8 Nov 2011

Whether requests vexatious – Mr Cherbi requested from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) information relative to compensation payments and hospitality offered. The SLCC responded to the effect that the information requested was intended for publication and relied upon section 27(1)(a)(i) of FOISA.
Following reviews, as a result of which the SLCC informed Mr Cherbi that it considered his requests to be vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA, Mr Cherbi remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SLCC withdrew its reliance upon section 14(1), the Commissioner found that the SLCC had failed to deal with Mr Cherbi’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, on the basis that Mr Cherbi’s requests were not vexatious in terms of section 14(1).

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 219 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451548

Greig and Chief Constable of Grampian Police: SIC 3 Feb 2012

SIC Ms Greig requested from the Chief Constable of Grampian Police (Grampian Police) information relative to two specific investigations, one relating to the death of an individual and one relating to criminal allegations. Grampian Police responded by stating that it did not hold certain of the information, while withholding the remainder under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Ms Greig remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Grampian Police had complied with FOISA in dealing with Ms Greig’s information requests. Insofar as the requested information was held by Grampian Police, he accepted that it had been properly withheld under exemptions relating to investigation of the cause of a death (section 34(2)(b)(ii)) or personal data (section 38(1)(a) and (b)).

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 021 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451529

Tom Gordon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 6 Feb 2012

SIC This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Mr Gordon

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 024 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451527

Graham Devine and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 5 Jan 2012

SIC Mr Devine requested from South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) information relating to an incident that had affected his property. The Council responded by providing some information, but withholding other information in terms of section 36(1) of FOISA (as information to which a claim of confidentiality could be maintained in legal proceedings). The Council also gave notice that it did not hold any information in respect of part of Mr Devine’s request. Following a review, as a result of which the Council disclosed some more information, but also relied upon section 38(1)(b) of FOISA for withholding certain personal information, Mr Devine remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, in the course of which Mr Devine confirmed that he was not interested in certain of the withheld personal data, the Commissioner found that the Council had been correct in withholding the remainder of the information under either section 36(1) or section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. He did not require any action by the Council.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 002 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451511

Birkett v The Department for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 21 Dec 2011

Judges:

Carnwath, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1606, [2012] PTSR 1299

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Defra v Information Commissioner and SB UTAA 26-Jan-2011
Information rights – Freedom of information – public authority response . .

Cited by:

Cited – Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Environment

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451332