Category: Information

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested technical information relating to a speed camera. Hampshire Constabulary denied holding the requested information and upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary is correct when it denies holding the requested information. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50502881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.528882

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2010

The complainant requested the dates of pre-hunt meetings and the names of police officers who had attended these. The public authority disclosed the dates of the meetings, but refused to disclose officer’s names and cited the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), 38(1)(a) (endangerment to health) and 38(1)(b) (endangerment to safety). Section 40(2) (personal information) was also cited following the intervention of the Commissioner. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that information recording the officers’ names is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) and, therefore, the public authority is not required to disclose this information. However, the Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 17(1) and 17(3)(b) in its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0132 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50285356

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.531551

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Nov 2009

The complainant made a request to the City of London for legal advice which led to a decision by the public authority to grant the Church of Scientology Religious Education College mandatory relief in relation to the business rates it is charged. The public authority refused to disclose the information on the basis of the exemption contained in section 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has upheld the public authority’s application of section 42. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0095 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50241934

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.532304

Hampshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Sep 2009

The complainant requested the details of complaints made about a named police officer. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) and section 30(3). The Commissioner finds that confirmation or denial would disclose personal data and that the disclosure of this personal data would be in breach of the first data protection principle. The exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) is, therefore, engaged and the public authority is not required to take any steps. However, the public authority did not comply with the requirements of section 17(1)(b) of the Act in not fully citing the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0089 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50233972

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.532171

Common Council of The City of London (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Apr 2010

The complainant requested the amounts paid to Assistant Directors and above from the public authority’s Department of Community and Children’s Service in severance and/or redundancy packages in five financial years. He asked for the information to be anonymised. The public authority explained that it had paid money in two of the five years to one individual in each year. However, it explained that it could not provide the amount paid as it was unable to anonymise the data. This was because the information in any form remained the personal data of those individuals and the information was therefore exempt by virtue of section 40(2). The Commissioner has considered the application of section 40(2) in this case and has determined that it was correct. He therefore dismisses the complaint and requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50294078

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.531394

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jan 2014

The complainant submitted a request to Bolton Council (the Council) for the names of the five councillors who had received reminders for non-payment of council tax since May 2011 (two of these councillors had also received court summons for non-payment). The Council refused to disclose the names of the five councillors on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA (the personal data exemption). In the particular circumstances of this case the Commissioner is satisfied that disclosure of the names of the five councillors would be unfair and breach the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act. The names are therefore exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50499885

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.527304

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Oct 2011

The complainant has requested the names of Heads or Senior Managers of each department at Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council has not dealt with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA by incorrectly withholding information under the personal information exemption, and taking too long to respond and provide the information. However, the Commissioner has decided that the following element of the request was dealt with in accordance with the FOIA: Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council correctly determined that the information in the two specific instances referred to in the confidential annex was correctly withheld under the personal information exemption. The Commissioner requires Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with the names of Heads or Senior Managers of each department at Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council as at the time of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50363088

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.530934

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jul 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to detergents discharged into rain water drains as a result of wheelie bin cleaning. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council confirmed that it did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolton Council correctly confirmed (under regulation 5 of the EIR) that it did not hold the requested information. However, it failed to respond to the request or issue an appropriate refusal notice within 20 working days and, in doing so, breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR. In failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days the council also breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0491397

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.528417

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 May 2010

On 02 January 2010 the complainant contacted Bolton Council requesting information relating to external companies who may provide or have provided accounting and auditing services to the Council. The Council provided the complainant with a response on 18 February 2010. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the delay involved in the public authority’s handling of the request. The Commissioner finds the Council to be in breach of section 10(1) of the Act in failing to respond to the request within the statutory time period of 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50297402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.531418

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (Local Government): ICO 4 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to a film commissioned by Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA). The Commissioner’s decision is that LVRPA is correct when it says the requested information is not environmental information. It therefore has no obligation to provide it under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0762114

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.635082

Derbyshire Dales District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 8 Dec 2016

The complainant has requested recorded information from Derbyshire Dales District Council. The requested information concerns a public house, owned by the complainant, which has been listed by the Council as an asset of community value (‘ACV’) under the Localism Act 2011. The Council’s decision to list the public house as an ACV is subject to an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). The Commissioner has decided that Derbyshire Dales District Council has properly applied section 42 to email correspondence it holds where a claim of legal professional privilege can be maintained. She has also decided that the Council does not hold any further email correspondence concerning the Council’s decision to list the named public house as an ACV and consequently the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50629174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.573060

Derbyshire Dales District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 May 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to traffic at a specific roundabout and road with reference to a Transport Evidence Base Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Derbyshire Dales District Council does not hold further requested information. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50644165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.593665

Holyoake v Candy and Another: QBD 24 Jan 2017

The claimant sought to have access to his personal information held by the defendant. The defendant relied upon the legal professional privilege exemption.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 52 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Jul-2016
The claimants alleged several torts had been involved in a substantial fraud on them by means of a funding loan. . .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 29-Nov-2016
Application by the Defendants for security for costs. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 27-Feb-2017
Applications for further disclosure on the grounds of collateral waiver. . .
See Also – Candy and Others v Holyoake and Another CA 28-Feb-2017
Appeal against grant of ‘notification injunction’ . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others QBD 2-Mar-2017
Mr Candy claimed remedies for what he alleged were completed or threatened wrongs in the form of breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) against five defendants, one of whom had filmed . .
See Also – Candy v Holyoake and Others (No 2) QBD 22-Nov-2017
. .
See Also – Holyoake and Another v Candy and Others ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.573382

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50469109: ICO 24 Apr 2013

The complainant has requested information about Disability Equality Training undertaken by members of staff at the BBC. The BBC considered the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that only part of the request is covered by the FOIA as some of the information relates to the BBC’s activities in journalism, art or literature and is therefore not covered by the FOIA. For the part of the request within the scope of the FOIA, the Commissioner considers the BBC has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50469109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.528166

Wolverhampton City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 May 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the costs associated with the Civic Centre owned by Wolverhampton City Council, and the number of properties paying a peppercorn rent rate to the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to reply to the requests within 20 working days. As the council responded to the requests during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, he does not require any steps to be taken by the council.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50493173

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.528318

Poeton Industries Ltd and Another v Michael Ikem Horton: CA 26 May 2000

The claimant sought damages and an injunction after their former employee set up in business, using, they said, information about their manufacturing procedures and customers obtained whilst employed by them. The defendant appealed the injunction granted in respect of the use of production techniques (electro-plating).
Held: The employer had not done enough to establish that the imformation he sought to protect was confidential and the injunction was discharged.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Cited – Printers and Finishers Limited v Holloway 1965
The court considered the questions arising from the use of information acquired by an employee during his employment after that employment had ended, and noted that information the future use of which will not be restrained is information not . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken v Fowler ChD 1984
The court was asked to restrain the plaintiff’s a former sales manager making use of information acquired during his employment which information the employer claimed to be confidential. F had set up a business in a similar field, the marketing of . .
Cited – Lancashire Fires Ltd v S A Lyons and Co Ltd CA 1996
It was claimed that a loan to the employee from a customer of the employer coupled with an exclusive supply agreement by the employee as and when the competing business becomes operative was in breach of an non-compete clause.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Employment

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135746

Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte K and Another: 1 Nov 1989

Application was made for the disclosure of a local authorities social worker records, during the course of care proceedings after allegations of secual abuse had been made against the parents.
Held: The court must look to the interests of the child: ‘as part and parcel of its general welfare, not only in having its own voice sympathetically heard and its own needs sensitively considered but also in ensuring that its parents are given every proper opportunity of having the evidence fairly tested and preparing themselves in advance to meet the grave charges against them.’ and ‘Local authorities therefore have a high duty in law, not only on grounds of general fairness but also in the direct interest of a child whose welfare they serve, to be open in the disclosure of all relevant material affecting that child in their possession or power (excluding documents protected on established grounds of public immunity) which may be of assistance to the natural parent or parents in rebutting charges against one or both of them of in any way ill-treating the child.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ and Waite J

Citations:

[1990] 1 FLR 330

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.467126

Edate Advertising (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice): ECJ 29 Mar 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Area of Freedom, Security And Justice – Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by means of publishing information on Internet – Article 5, Section 3 – Definition of ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ – Applicability Shevill jurisprudence of the Court of Justice – Directive 2000/31/EC – Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Determination of the existence of a conflict rule on rights of personality.

Citations:

C-509/09, [2011] EUECJ C-509/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC 3

Jurisdiction:

European

Information, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.431349

Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 18 Jun 2013

The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and intimidating manner. She said that this was involuntary and that it had been unlawful.
Held: The photographs had been obtained unlawfully and must be destroyed. They could not be retained.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
Cited – Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information, Police

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510923

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Feb 2013

ICO The complainant requested legal advice from the Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government (‘the authority’) on the subject of the suitability of the Householder Appeal Service’ HAS’) for the consideration of applications for vehicle access. The authority refused to supply the information, citing the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority correctly withheld the information using regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0463490

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.528007

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2006

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Her Majesty’s Treasury for all relevant papers relating to the decision to reduce income tax by one pence in the pound announced in the 1999 Budget. HMT advised that the information was refused by virtue of section 35(1)(a) of the Act. HMT also concluded that the public interest was not served by releasing the requested information. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is not satisfied that HMT dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner finds that HMT failed to respond to the request within the timescales provided by the Act and failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner also found that the refusal notice given to the complainant was less helpful than he would hope is generally the case, although he notes that in this instance the complainant does not appear to have been disadvantaged as a result. The Commissioner is particularly critical of the fact that the public authority gave the impression to the applicant that significantly more information was held than was the case. The Commissioner finds, moreover, that although HMT was correct to regard the requested information as falling within the terms of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the Act, he does not consider that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemption. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50104994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.533602

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Apr 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information about a concluded planning inquiry. The Commissioner’s decision is that no information is held save for that which has previously been made available to the complainant. No further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0474711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.528219

Catt v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 30 May 2012

The claimant objected to the retention of data about him as to his attendance at assorted political protests. He had not engaged in criminality.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Catt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Others CA 14-Mar-2013
The appellant sought an order requiring the defendant to to remove entries against his name in police databases. He had been a frequent protester against what he saw to be unlawful activities of a defence contractor. Other members of his group had . .
At First Instance – Catt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459822

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information relating to an appeal decision report. The Planning Inspectorate responded, providing some information and advising the complainant that it did not hold additional information beyond that which has been disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Planning Inspectorate has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50433290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.529764

Department of Health and Social Care v The Information Commissioner: UTAA 27 Oct 2020

Information Rights – section 35(1(a) FOIA exemption ‘chilling effect’ and ‘safe space’ – section 2(2)(b) balancing exercise – whether the FTT misdirected itself in law and failed to give proper weight to the prejudice to the public interest that would be caused by disclosure – whether the FTT failed to place any weight on the harm that disclosure would cause to the public interest in protecting the ‘safe space’ for policy formulation – whether the tribunal misdirected itself on the question of ‘live’ policy formulation – whether the FTT was wrong to focus on the contents of documents as individual packets of information rather than considering the documents as a whole or considering the whole of the information in a document as a package.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 299 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656583

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 3 Feb 2020

The complainant has requested a summary of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed a small amount of information but continued to rely on the exemptions cited for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50858667

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.653505

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 7 Jan 2020

The complainant has requested video footage from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) of an incident it attended. The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at sections 30 (investigations and proceedings) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50876952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651382

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 27 Apr 2020

The complainant has requested information about fabricated crime reports from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to cite section 12(2) but she does find a breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50906866

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651522

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 27 Jan 2020

The complainant has requested information about three named parties from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). In compliance with a First-tier Tribunal ruling, the MPS confirmed holding relevant information. However, it refused to disclose it citing sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and, in the alternative, 24(1) (national security), as well as sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0087 under appeal.
FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50883491

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651383