Category: Information

Milne v Chief Constable of Tayside Police: SIC 26 Jun 2006

SIC Failure to deal with request or review – Failure of the Chief Constable of Tayside Police to respond to a request for information and to a request for a review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 124 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434617

Uttley and The University of Edinburgh: SIC 25 Jul 2006

Information about Thomas Hamilton’s post mortem – whether the information is held for the purposes of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 by the University of Edinburgh – information not held

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 138 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434637

Cooper v Aberdeen City Council: SIC 13 Mar 2006

SIC Request for a copy of a report commissioned by Aberdeen City Council – withheld on the basis of section 38(1)(b) (personal information) and section 36(2) (actionable breach of confidence) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – Commissioner held report exempt under section 30(c) of FOISA

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 039 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434532

Arunabha Das Gupta v Scottish Court Service: SIC 17 Dec 2007

SIC Four requests for information regarding individuals and practices at the Scottish Court Service ? Commissioner required disclosure of the dates of appointment of two officials, but accepted that the remaining information withheld was exempt under section 38(1)(b) and that other information was not held under section 17 ? Commissioner found that certain questions had not been responded to at the time of the requests, but no further action required.

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 229 – 2007

Links:

Bailii, IPK

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434491

DH Telford On Behalf of VB Contracts Ltd and East Lothian Council: SIC 29 Mar 2006

SIC Request for due diligence information – failure by the Council to respond to the request under section 10(1) of FOISA – failure to issue a notice of review in accordance with section 21 – information subsequently supplied by authority during the course of the investigation – applicant remained dissatisfied – held that all of the information held by the Council in relation to the request has now been supplied to the applicant

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 057 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434533

Doherty v The Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 22 Aug 2007

Information relating to the death of Joseph Doherty – Request for information relating to the death of Joseph Doherty – information withheld – the Commissioner generally upheld the use of the exemption by the CSA

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 146 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434401

McGregor v Common Services Agency of The Scottish Health Service: SIC 2 Jul 2007

SIC Request for data on medical negligence claims – section 30(c), section 33(1)(b) and section 36(1) applied – public interest considered

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 098 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1 2, The Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Scotland, Information, Health Professions

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434384

Rob Edwards and Scottish Ministers: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges – Mr Edwards made two requests to the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. The Ministers responded by providing Mr Edwards with some of the information falling within the scope of his requests. However, the Ministers withheld certain documentation under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Edwards remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Ministers notified the Commissioner that on further consideration of the requests, they now considered that the costs of compliance with each request would exceed andpound;600 (and therefore that they were not obliged to comply with the requests in terms of section 12(1) of FOISA). The Ministers subsequently provided the Commissioner with an estimate of the projected costs of compliance.
As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner found that the projected costs of compliance in each case would exceed andpound;600 and that the Ministers were not required to respond to the requests.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 154 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434261

Loveday’s and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Failure to respond to a request for information within the required timescales and failure to respond to a request for review.
This decision considers whether Scottish Borders Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Loveday’s. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 153 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434255

W and Scottish Court Service: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Regulations, Rules of Court and procedures – Mr W requested from the Scottish Court Service (SCS) copies of regulations and rules of court, along with advice regarding a particular case. The SCS responded by providing a copy of the requested regulations, while declining to provide advice. Following a review, during which Mr W was informed under section 17 of FOISA that information was not held, Mr W remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SCS also claimed some of the information to be exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA, the Commissioner found that the information requested was either not held or exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA in that it was otherwise accessible to the applicant.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 150 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434262

Russell Findlay v Scottish Police Services Authority: SIC 18 Dec 2008

Photographic image of badge – Mr Findlay requested from the Scottish Police Services Authority (the SPSA) a photographic image of a particular badge used by officers to identify themselves to the public. The SPSA responded by indicating that this information was not held. Following a review, Mr Findlay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPSA had dealt with Mr Findlay’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by stating, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it did not hold the information requested.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 159 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434265

Capacity Building Project and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Investigation into complaints against the Capacity Building Project – Summary – The Capacity Building Project (the Project) requested from the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) copies of original letters of complaint, a list of individuals interviewed in the course of an investigation conducted by the Council and the transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the investigation. The Council responded by providing the Project with redacted versions of the complaint letters, where it has withheld information in terms of section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Council also withheld the list of interviewees and the transcripts of those interviews in terms of sections 36(2), 35(1)(g) and 35(2)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, the Council also applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) to the information withheld. The Project remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with the Project’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA because all of the information withheld was exempt from disclosure. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 152 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434252

Councillor Danny Carrigan and Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Addresses and sales dates of specific properties – Councillor Danny Carrigan (Councillor Carrigan) requested from the Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board (the Board) the exact addresses and sales dates of the three properties whose selling price had been used to determine the council tax banding of a property inhabited by one of his constituents. The Board responded by advising Councillor Carrigan that it considered the information exempt from disclosure in terms of section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Councillor Carrigan remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Board had dealt with Councillor Carrigan’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying the exemption in section 25(1) of FOISA to the withheld information. He did not require the Board to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 151 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434253

Peterson v Shetland Islands Council: SIC 15 Dec 2008

Failure to respond to a request for information and requirements for review within the required timescales – This decision considers whether Shetland Islands Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to information requests made by Mr Peterson.
The Council failed to respond to Mr Peterson’s information request in one instance and his requests for review in respect of this and another request for information. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the relevant timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 158 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434259

Mary Smith and West Lothian Council: SIC 6 Nov 2008

Membership of Committee – Mrs Smith requested from West Lothian Council (the Council) the names and posts of members of the Committee which had approved the Council’s Fair Treatment at Work Policy. The Council responded by releasing the names of the Councillors present at the relevant meeting of the Policy, Partnership and Resources Committee. Mrs Smith was also advised that minutes could be viewed on the West Lothian Council website. Following a review, Mrs Smith remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mrs Smith’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by providing her with the information she had requested and reasonable advice and assistance to facilitate a further request.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 141 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434248