Category: Information

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 8 Apr 2019

The complainant requested information about the procurement process for asylum accommodation and support services in specified regions. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA, the exemption for commercial interests. This notice relates to part one of the request only. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner therefore requires the Home Office to disclose the information in part one of the request. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50811422

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.638099

Johnson v The Medical Defence Union: CA 28 Mar 2007

The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously exist in English domestic law. He said that when the defendant had proceesed information it held about him leading to a decision to cease to provide continuing professional support for him, they had processed that computer based information unfairly.
Held: Damage under section 13(1) of the 1998 Act means ordinary pecuniary loss.

Judges:

Buxton, Arden, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 262, (2007) 96 BMLR 99, [2008] Bus LR 503, [2007] 3 CMLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 13(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 20-Feb-2004
. .
See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Appeal from – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 3-Mar-2006
The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on . .

Cited by:

Cited – Murray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others CA 27-Mar-2015
Damages for breach of Data Protection
The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Information, Damages

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250580

Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others: CA 9 Mar 2007

The defendants had declined to produce documents saying that they had been obtained under conditions of confidence from the Financial Services Authority. The claimants said that the documents were not protected since the defendant already had the documents required independently of the FSA.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. They could not claim protection from disclosure of information returned to them by the FSA. The information had not been ‘obtained’ from the FSA.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 197, Times 06-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Real Estate Opportunities Ltd v Aberdeen Asset Managers Jersey Ltd and others ChD 15-Dec-2006
The defendant company resisted disclosure of documents saying that they had been supplied by the Financial Services Authority in confidence, and that to disclose them would be an offence.
Held: The information had already in principle been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249958

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jan 2011

On 23 October 2009, the complainant requested copies of written communications exchanged between the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the public authority’s press office relating to media coverage of the DPP’s annual lecture of 21 October 2009. The public authority refused to provide this information arguing that it was exempt under section 36(2) of the Act (Effective conduct of public affairs) and that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. It upheld this position on internal review. The public authority later made a disclosure of some information to the complainant having concluded that the passage of time altered the balance of public interest in relation to that information. The Commissioner has concluded that the majority of the information that remains withheld is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) and that the public interest in maintaining those exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, he has found that in relation to a small section of the withheld information, the public interest favours disclosure and he now requires the public authority to disclose it. The Commissioner also identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the request was handled.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50286243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.530134

North Somerset Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2013

The complainant requested internal correspondence within North Somerset Council (the Council) relating to licences for outdoor eating and drinking. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder and cited the following exceptions from the EIR: Regulation 12(3) (personal information), Regulation 12(5)(b) (adverse effect to the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature), Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council cited regulation 12(3) correctly and regulation 12(5)(b) correctly in relation to some of the information withheld under that exception. However, in relation to the remainder of the information for which 12(5)(b) was cited, and all the information in relation to which regulation 12(4)(e) was cited, the Commissioner finds that these exceptions were cited incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information specified in the schedule provided with this notice to the Council in relation to which regulation 12(5)(b) was cited, and all of the information in relation to which regulation 12(4)(e) was cited.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12 3 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0496878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.528912

North Somerset Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Sep 2010

The complainant requested a copy of legal advice the public authority obtained in relation to a complaint he made to it about an alleged breach of planning control at a residential property neighbouring his own. The public authority applied sections 31(law enforcement) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Act and stated that the information was exempt from disclosure. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner considers the withheld information to constitute environmental information and the relevant legislation under which the request should have been considered to be the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the withheld information is subject to legal professional privilege and that it is exempt by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. He found procedural breaches in the way the public authority handled the request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0184 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50326593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.531672

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2013

The complainant requested details of any criminal convictions for five specified police officers. The CPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information, relying on the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS cited section 40(5) correctly and so it was not required to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490440

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.528249

Hertsmere Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 27 Apr 2015

The complainant has made two requests for information to Hertsmere Borough Council and has complained to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s failure to respond to his requests within the statutory compliance period of twenty working days which is required by section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertsmere Borough Council has contravened section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to any further action in this matter at the present time
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.555309

British Museum (Education (Other)): ICO 7 Apr 2015

The complainant has made a number of requests to the British Museum for records on the subject of the Parthenon sculptures in its collection. The British Museum addressed each of the requests in turn; providing some parts of the requested information, withholding other parts, or otherwise explaining that it did not hold the requested information. The present complaint refers to one request and concerns British Museum’s reliance on the exemptions set out at sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information engages the exemptions and that in all the circumstances the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565708

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.555276

Ash Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 21 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information from Ash Parish Council (‘the Council’) which relates to its judicial review of the decision by Guildford Borough Council to grant permission to build 400 houses on land south of Ash Lodge Drive – Reference 12/P/10973. The Council provided the complainant with a letter it received from Ash Residents’ Association, but withheld other information in reliance on the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ash Parish Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take the any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.555267

Secretary of State for the Home Office v British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and Another: QBD 25 Apr 2008

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 892 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Home Office and Another CA 30-Jul-2008
The union sought disclosure of information supplied to the respondent when the applicant applied for licences to carry out animal experiments.
Held: The information had been supplied in confidence. The test was a subjective one as to the state . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Animals

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.267125

Regina v Rooney: CA 12 Jul 2006

The appellant appealed her conviction under the 1998 Act. As a police support worker, she had used the Force’s computer to access information about former boyfriend. She replied that the access was simply for the purpose of ensuring the records were up to date. She now said that to say to her sister that the data subjects ‘lived in Tunstall’ was not personal data since it did not suffciently identify the subjects and that her acquittals on some charges amounted to inconsistent verdicts.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant had not shown that the verdicts were logically inconsistent.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Bean J, Goldsack J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1841

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v B CACD 15-May-1997
The Court upheld a conviction in respect of an Appellant who had been convicted of three offences on a six-count indictment. He was acquitted of the other three. In respect of each of the six counts the Prosecution relied upon the uncorroborated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248237

Derry City Council v Information Commissioner: IT 11 Nov 2006

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1984
The defendant had acquired illegal tapes of telephone conversations which it said implicated the plaintiff. He sought to restrain publication of the material pending forthcoming discliplinary charges at the Jockey Club.
Held: The court had to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248067

Sugar v Information Commissioner: IT 29 Aug 2006

IT At this preliminary hearing the Tribunal finds that at the time of the request made by Mr Sugar to the BBC for a copy of the Balen Report it was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.
The Tribunal substitutes a partial decision notice to this effect and requires the parties, within 20 days of the date of this decision, to provide written submissions as to how they consider the Tribunal should now best dispose of the appeal.

Judges:

John Angel

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2005 – 0032 – 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Cited by:

See Also – Sugar v Information Commissioner IT 29-Aug-2006
The Preliminary Issue before the Information Tribunal
The Tribunal decided on 2 March 2006, under its rule 10 procedure (summary disposal of appeals – The Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005 (the Rules), in the absence of the . .
See Also – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
At IT – Sugar and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) CA 25-Jan-2008
The court upheld Davis J’s decision that neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal had had any jurisdiction to entertain Mr Sugar’s challenges to the BBC’s refusal to disclose the Balen report. . .
At IT – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
See Also – Sugar v Information Commissioner IT 14-May-2009
. .
At IT – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 2-Oct-2009
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether . .
At IT – Sugar v The British Broadcasting Commission and Another (No 2) CA 23-Jun-2010
The respondent had had prepared a report as to the balance of its reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier proceedings had established that the purposes of the holding of the reporting included jurnalism. The claimant now appealed . .
At IT – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248062

Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner: IHCS 1 Dec 2006

The Agency rejected a request to provide statistics on certain children, saying that the numbers were so small that individuals might be identified.
Held: Since the whole purpose of 2002 Act is the release of information, it should be construed in as liberal a manner as possible. The table setting out the census ward data, anonymised as described, would not constitute personal data of any of the children resident in the area who had in a relevant year been diagnosed with leukaemia. It was information that was held by the Agency at the time when the request was received, and the Commissioner was entitled to require the Agency to provide this data in the exercise of his supervisory powers under the Act.

Judges:

Lord President And Lord Marnoch And Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSIH – 58, 2007 SC 231, [2006] CSIH 58

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, Data Protection Act 1998

Citing:

Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner HL 9-Jul-2008
An MP had asked the Agency under the 2002 Act for details of all incidents of childhood leukaemia for both sexes by year from 1990 to 2003 for all the DG (Dumfries and Galloway) postal area by census ward. The Agency replied by saying that the . .
Cited – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246819

Data Protection Registrar v Amnesty International (British Section): Admn 8 Nov 1994

The defendants had been charged with recklessly holding and then disclosing information about named individuals. It had exchanged a list of potential addressee’s for use in mailing lists with another charity.
Held: Recklessness is defined by reference to the defendant’s foresight of the consequences as listed in the section, rather than the degree of harm to the data subject. The magistrate had confused the seriousness of the consequences of the breach with the breach itself. The appeal against the dismissal of the charges failed. To establish recklessness, the prosecution ‘must prove first that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary, prudent individual to the possibility that this act was capable of causing the kind of mischief that sections 5(2) and 5(5) are intended to prevent and that the risk of those mischiefs occurring was not so slight that the ordinary, prudent individual would feel justified in regarding them as negligible. Secondly the prosecution must prove that before doing the act, the defendant either failed to give any thought to the possibility of their being such a risk, or, having recognised that there was such a risk, he nevertheless went on to do it.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1994, CO 1323/94, [1995] Crim L R 633

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 5(2) 5(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police v Caldwell HL 19-Mar-1981
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might . .

Cited by:

Cited – Information Commissioner v Islington London Borough Council Admn 24-May-2002
The commissioner appealed a dismissal of her case against a council, complaining that the council knowingly or recklessly used personal data for the collection of council tax, for which registration had expired.
Held: It was not necessary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Crime

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.79818

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 7 Jun 2019

The complainant requested a particular file from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50837522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638753

Leeds City Council (Local Government) FS50791135: ICO 26 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information about the Elmet Greenway. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – that it was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request dated 22 May 2018 and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to respond to the review request within 40 working days but did not breach regulation 5(2) as it provided its request response by the twentieth working day. As the Council has now provided a review response, it is not required to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50791135

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638107

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 17 Apr 2019

The complainant requested a variety of information about the Child Maintenance Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638077

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 29 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information about entry clearance settlement applications from the Home Office (‘HO’). The HO advised the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the HO does hold the information that was requested. She requires the HO to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50820771

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638101

Leeds City Council (Local Government) FER0839190: ICO 26 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information about the awarding of a feasibility study for the Elmet Greenway. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – that it was manifestly unreasonable. However the Council’s refusal failed to inform the complainant of his right to appeal the Council’s decision, and of the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has therefore breached regulation 14(5). She requires the Council to issue a fresh refusal notice that complies fully with the regulations.
EIR 14(5): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FER0839190

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638106

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 20 Mar 2019

The complainant requested information relating to the Northern Ireland Road Safety Partnership. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) (the duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. However, by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that PSNI has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50752063

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638048

Home Office (Central Government) FS50688541: ICO 9 Apr 2019

The complainant requested information relating to the Criminal Finances Bill. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it additionally cited section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated its application of sections 27 and 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 35(1)(a) in respect of some of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the remaining information in the scope of the request is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 or 35. She also found procedural breaches. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with a copy of the requested information, excluding the information described in the annex to this decision notice, with personal information redacted in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance on third party personal data.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld FOI 27: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50688541

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638097

Home Office (Central Government) FS50812426: ICO 9 Apr 2019

The complainant requested a copy of the Home Office Homicide Index with entries covering an 18 year period. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, initially citing sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. Following its internal review and the complainant’s modified request, the Home Office instead cited sections 14(1), (vexatious request) on the grounds that responding to the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on it and 12(1) (cost of compliance). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office advised that it wished to rely only on section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that request was vexatious and so section 14(1) applied and the Home Office was not obliged to comply with it. She also finds there was no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance) in this case. The Home Office is not required to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50812426

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638100

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 13 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested information about police officers deployed to police UK ports for the 2018 football world cup from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS initially refused to confirm or deny holding any information citing sections 40(5) (personal information), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 24(2) (national security) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position. It disclosed some information, advised some was not held and refused the remainder citing section 31(1). The complainant disagreed with the application of 31(1) in respect of part (1) of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) is not engaged in this respect and the MPS is required to disclose the information.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50797148

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.635016

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 12 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to a peer review of Greater Manchester Police carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the MPS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps.
FOI 17(3): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50797315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.635017

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 6 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested information about service credits relating to contracts for the provision of asylum accommodation. The Home Office withheld the information, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to demonstrate that disclosing the requested information would be likely to prejudice its, or any of its service providers, commercial interests. The Commissioner therefore considers that section 43(2) of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (Time for compliance) and 17(1) (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The Home Office 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: Complaint upheld FOI 43(2): Complaint upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50768317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.634995

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 25 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested from the Home Office information about expenses claims made by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. The Home Office disclosed most of the requested information, including information about individual amounts claimed, but it withheld copies of receipts submitted in support of subsistence claims. It said this information was exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the receipts. However, she found that it breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50807443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638026

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50804422: ICO 19 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information about promotions of named parties and a report allegedly written about herself from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS provided some information but would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any further information by virtue of sections 40(5A) and (5B) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 40(5A) and (5B) are properly engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50804422

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638032

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50810726: ICO 19 Mar 2019

The complainant requested a copy of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held the report the MPS subsequently advised the complainant that it did not hold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MPS does not hold the requested information. She does not require the MPS to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50810726

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638033

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 14 Feb 2019

The complainant requested Security Service-related information from the Home Office (‘HO’). The HO advised the complainant that it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s has considered whether, at the time of the request, the information was held by the HO. Her decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the HO did not hold the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50788440

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.634996

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 28 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested an anonymised copy of a database from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having previously determined that to respond with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA, during the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position and instead cited section 14(1) (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required to be taken.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50786495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.635015

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 20 Mar 2019

The complainant requested information relating to a change made to the knowledge of language and life requirement for those applying for settlement or British Citizenship. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50813427

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.638027