Category: Information

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 12 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information about a court case. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and relied on the exemptions provided by sections 32(3) (court records) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s conclusion is that the MoJ cited section 32(3) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested by the complainant.
FOI 32: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50703439

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617506

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50714191: ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice an updated version of the Bailiff Manual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has breached Sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Justice to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request dated 11 May 2017 under FOIA. The Ministry of Justice 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50714191

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617510

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50696408: ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information relating to cases involving joint enterprise convictions between the years 2005 and 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the requested information and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50696408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617501

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50703782: ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information relating to civil court proceedings with a specific case reference number. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information citing sections 32(3) (court records) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(3) of the FOIA. Her decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on that exemption to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 32: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50703782

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617507

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50696540: ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information relating to cases involving joint enterprise convictions between the years 2005 and 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the requested information and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50696540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617502

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50709502: ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information relating to the prosecution of various parties before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or the investigation of parties by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) 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) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50709502

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617509

Lambeth London Borough Council (Local Government) FS50683415: ICO 5 Feb 2018

The complainant requested a copy of an audit report. The London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) refused the request under section 36(2)(b) and (c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(b) and (c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50683415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617488

Lambeth London Borough Council (Local Government) FS50687769: ICO 5 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (LBL) on 4 December 2016 about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL has breached section 10 FOIA, has breached section 16 FOIA and is not entitled to rely on section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request dated 4 December 2016 which does not rely on section 12. 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 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50687769

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617489

Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (NI) (Central Government) FS50669428: ICO 6 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to a single-language policy. The Department of Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged with regard to the information held, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50669428

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617455

Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Ni) (Central Government) FS50700448: ICO 6 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to a single-language policy. The Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged with regard to the information held, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50700448

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617456

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (Local Government) FS50657675: ICO 27 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested a Financial Viability Assessment from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has withheld the Financial Viability Assessment under Regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has not successfully engaged Regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Financial Viability Assessment requested by the complainant on 4 August 2016.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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50657675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617474

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (Local Government) FER0701086: ICO 27 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham the Financial Viability Assessment it obtained in relation to the development of Five Star Car Wash, 10B Shepherd’s Bush Road, London W6 7PJ. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has withheld the requested information under Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has not correctly applied Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has breached Regulations 5 and 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Financial Viability Assessment commissioned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham requested by the complainant on 16 October 2016. 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FER0701086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617473

Cardiff Council (Local Government FS50674683: ICO 8 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information about a specific property. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) applied regulation 13(1) to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council sought to rely on regulation 13(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13(5) to the request. However, the Council failed to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days and breached regulation 14 of the EIR.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50674683

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617446

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 1 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to the death of Sandra Rivett and the subsequent disappearance of Lord Lucan from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS confirmed that it holds information but found it to be exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(investigations and proceedings) and 40(2)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50696358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617451

BBC (Other) FS50715992: ICO 12 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information about a visit to Malmo. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50715992

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617439

BBC (Other): ICO 27 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested the disclosure of a leaked document (the Section 166 Report). The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50719149

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617442

BBC (Other) FS50718274: ICO 12 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested the number of complaints found in favour of the complainant. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50718274

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617441

BBC (Other): ICO 20 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to BBC’s Tigrinya service. The BBC refused to provide the requested information at question one citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The BBC applied the derogation to question four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information at question one and correctly applied the derogation to question four. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50718238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617440

Cardiff Council (Local Government) FS50696643: ICO 8 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information about the management structure of Cardiff Council (‘the Council’). The Council provided the information, subject to some names being redacted under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50696643

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617447

BBC (Other): ICO 19 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information about the BBC and ‘positive discrimination’. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50721272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617443

St Thomas More Catholic Primary School, Eltham (Education): ICO 22 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 7 October 2015, from St Thomas More Catholic Primary School, Eltham (‘the School’). The School provided part of the document, but redacted in full the section entitled Financial Responsibility under section 40(2) of the FOIA – Third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that only some of the information has been correctly withheld under the exemption. The School has correctly withheld some specific salary information, but the remainder of the section either does not comprise third party personal data, or may fairly be disclosed without breaching any principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the section entitled Financial Responsibility to the complainant, apart from the four amounts of money which are specified since these relate to specific salary information, as detailed in this notice.
FOI 40: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50705315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617423

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50711918: ICO 18 Jan 2018

The complainant requested information about a specified court case. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of sections 40(5) personal information and 32(3) court records of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MOJ has applied section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA appropriately. She does not require the MOJ to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50711918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617402

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50692689: ICO 15 Jan 2018

The complainant submitted an information request to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO), which operates within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), asking whether they had received complaints against a named District Judge, the nature of those complaints (if any) and whether the complaints received (if any) were upheld. The MoJ refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 44 (2) prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MOJ’s application of section 44(2). Her decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that the confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). The Commissioner finds, however, that in failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50692689

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.617396