Category: Information

Councillor Stuart Currie and East Lothian Council: SIC 21 Feb 2013

Support to political groups for manifestos – Councillor Currie asked East Lothian Council (the Council) for information on work done by Council officers on the manifestos of two political groups on the Council. The Council withheld the information on the basis that it was intended for future publication, subsequently changing its position and notifying Councillor Currie that the information was withheld because its disclosure would substantially prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner accepted that this was the case, also finding that the Council had failed to give Councillor Currie the appropriate notice to this effect.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 026 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.514776

Gary Pearson and Renfrewshire Council: SIC 4 Dec 2012

SIC Information pertaining to the Council’s pre-2007 housing allocation policy – Mr Pearson asked Renfrewshire Council (the Council) for information about its pre-2007 housing allocation policy. The Council responded by providing some information, but withholding the remainder under sections 25(1), 36(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA. Further information was disclosed after a review and during the Commissioner’s investigation.
Following the investigation, while the Commissioner found that the Council had generally dealt with the request correctly, she identified certain information which should not have been withheld as subject to legal professional privilege and required its disclosure. She also identified certain information, disclosed during the investigation, which the Council had incorrectly described as reasonably obtainable by Mr Pearson.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 199 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.470170

Clatto Landscape Protection Group and Fife Council: SIC 4 Dec 2012

Wind turbine planning reports – Clatto Landscape Protection Group (CLPG) requested from Fife Council (the Council) information relating to two wind turbine planning applications. The Council released some information but withheld the preliminary case officer’s reports under regulation 10(4(e) (internal communications) of the EIRs. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the information related to internal communications, but found that the public interest favoured disclosure.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 200 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.470167

PTC Therapeutics International v EMA: ECFI 5 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Document held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna – Decision to grant a third party access to the document – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – No general presumption of confidentiality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:66, [2018] EUECJ T-718/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604735

POA v Commission: ECFI 8 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning an application for the registration of a name under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 – Documents originating from the Commission – Documents originating from a Member State – Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 – Refusal to grant access – Obligation to state reasons – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings – Extent of review by the institution and the EU Courts of the Member State’s grounds for objection

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:75, [2018] EUECJ T-74/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604734

Pari Pharma v EMA: ECFI 5 Feb 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra – Decision to grant a third party access to the documents – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – No general presumption of confidentiality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:65, [2018] EUECJ T-235/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604732

Secretary of State for The Home Department v Watson MP and Others: CA 30 Jan 2018

Consideration of case after reference to ECJ.Held: it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief, limited to the context of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, to the effect that DRIPA was inconsistent with EU law to the extent that it permitted access to retained data, where the objective pursued by that access was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, or where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority.

Judges:

SirGeoffrey Vos Ch, Patten, Lloyd Jones LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 70

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reference – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .
Cited – Digital Rights Ireland v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources etc ECJ 8-Apr-2014
ECJ Grand Chamber – Electronic communications – Directive 2006/24/EC – Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services – Retention of data generated or processed . .
At ECJ – Tele2 Sverige v Post-och telestyrelsen,
and Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 21-Dec-2016
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Electronic communications – Processing of personal data – Confidentiality of electronic communications – Protection – Directive 2002/58/EC – Articles 5, 6 and 9 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, European

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604151

Edate Advertising v X, Martinez v MGN Ltd: ECJ 25 Oct 2011

Grand Chamber – Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice) – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive 2000/31/EC – Publication of information on the internet – Adverse effect on personality rights – Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur – Law applicable to information society services

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-509/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685, [2012] QB 654, [2012] 3 WLR 227

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Edate Advertising v X ECJ 29-Mar-2011
ECJ 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 the publication of information . .

Cited by:

See Also – eDate Advertising GmbH v X ECJ 25-Oct-2011
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Directive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603733

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant asked the Home Office (the ‘public authority’) to provide information relating to a person who he believed had fraudulently obtained access to the UK. The public authority withheld the information using the exemption in section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’). The subject matter of the case prompted the Commissioner to consider whether the public authority should instead have given a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response. The Commissioner finds that confirmation or denial would be likely to 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) should therefore have been applied. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice. The public authority is not required to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0149 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50376688

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530660

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Aug 2011

The complainants made a five part request to East Sussex County Council for information about complaints about potholes on a specified road, the action it had taken to fix them and its policies in this area.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50325138

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530735

Office of Communications (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jul 2009

The complainant requested statistics which formed the basis for a report produced by OFCOM. The information was withheld under section 44 of the Act (prohibitions on disclosure). OFCOM stated that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 393 of the Communications Act 2003. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and is satisfied that the requested information falls within the scope of the statutory prohibition and that the section 44 exemption, therefore, applies. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0067 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50184499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.532108

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2010

ICO On 12 October 2009 the complainant requested financial information relating to two named Council officers from the public authority, including information on their annual salaries, expense claims and annual leave. The public authority provided a proportion of the information and withheld the remainder under section 12(1) and section 40(2) of the Act. It also stated that part of the information was not held. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the response, and particularly with the level of detail provided regarding the expense claims. The Commissioner has investigated and upheld the public authority’s application of sections 12(1) and section 40(2); however, he also determined that it had failed to comply with its procedural obligations under sections 10(1), 17(1), 17(5) and 16(1). He requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50277947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.531898

Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested information principally arising from a noise complaint made to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. This included a request to inspect his property file. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly claimed that it does not hold some of the information specified by the complainant as falling within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request to inspect his property file in accordance with regulation 6 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information on the property file to the complainant in an alternative format, such as a print-out or electronically, subject to any relevant disbursement costs that accord with regulation 8(8) of the EIR. If and where the Council considers that any or all of the information is exempt information, the Council should issue a refusal notice that specifies the exception(s) in the EIR it is seeking to rely on and includes an explanation demonstrating why the exception(s) applies. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0237 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0369377

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530800

Home Office (Decision Notice) FS50347500: ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information from the UK Border Agency (the UKBA) relating to the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules HC 367. The UKBA confirmed information was held but refused to disclose it by reference to sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner investigated and finds that, in relation to the majority of the requested information, sections 35(1)(a) and 42(1) are engaged and that the balance of the public interest weighs in favour of maintaining the exemptions. However, in relation to the content of part of this information the Commissioner finds that none of the exemptions cited are engaged and that the UKBA breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in refusing to disclose this information. The UKBA is now required to disclose this information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50347500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530749

Foyle Women’s Aid (Undertakings): ICO 13 Aug 2013

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Foyle Women’s Aid. This follows the temporary loss of a folder belonging to a Criminal Justice Support worker employed by Foyle Women’s Aid that was left in a cafe. The folder contained confidential client information. An apparent lack of effective controls and procedures for taking information out of the office was a contributor to the loss of highly sensitive personal data.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.528564

Home Office (Decision Notice) FS50324433: ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. The public authority refused to provide this information citing exemptions at section 23 (Security bodies), section 35 (Formulation/Development of Government policy) and section 21 (Reasonably accessible to the requester). It upheld this position on internal review. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information is exempt under section 23 of the Act. However, he has identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the public authority handled this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50324433

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530748

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Aug 2011

The complainant asked the UK Border Agency to provide information relating to comprehensive sickness insurance of EEA nationals. The public provided some information but withheld the remainder using the exemptions in sections 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was properly withheld by reference to section 35(1) and the complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0203 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50377314

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530751

Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50435687: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435687

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.529364

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant requested information from the UK Borders Agency about how its handles correspondence it receives from the offices of Members of the Scottish Parliament about individual asylum applications. The request was refused on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that all of the requested information falls within the scope of section 35(1)(a) and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368360

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530657

Wood Green High School (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2009

The complainant made a request to the Governing Body of Wood Green High School (the ‘School’) for information relating to the letting of School facilities. The School provided its lettings policy but refused to provide the complainant with the rest of the requested information and relied upon the provisions contained at sections 12 and 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). The School asserted that to comply with the request would exceed the pounds 450 cost limit and therefore it was not obliged to do so under section 12 of the Act. The School also deemed the request vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. Upon consideration of all of the circumstances of the case the Commissioner considers that section 12(1) was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner did not therefore go on to consider the School’s application of section 14. The Commissioner does however consider that the School breached section 16(1) and section 17(5) of the Act in its handling of this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50190669

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.532115

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jun 2011

ICO The complainant requested information regarding specific types of speed camera. The Home Office provided the majority of the requested information and it confirmed that it did not hold information relating to two of the types of speed camera specified by the complainant. The Commissioner initially investigated whether or not the remaining requested information was held by the Home Office and whether section 12(2) of the Act had been correctly applied. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Home Office performed further searches and was able to confirm that it did not hold the remaining requested information. The Commissioner accepts that the searches most likely to find the requested information were performed and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Home Office.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50355093

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530567

Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50408845: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50408845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.529359

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant requested information from the UK Border Agency (UKBA) concerning its scheme (or pilot scheme) to expel European Economic Area nationals on the basis that they are not exercising Treaty rights. The public authority disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemption in section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest favours the maintenance of the exemption. The Commissioner did however identify a number of procedural breaches. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0191 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50360052

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530656

Olympic Delivery Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Aug 2011

The complainant made a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) asking whether there was any connection between radioactive contamination at the Olympic Park and a set of plinths described in a tender request. ODA responded that there was no connection between the management of contamination of their site and the plinths. The Commissioner decided, on the balance of probabilities, that ODA did not hold any undisclosed information within the scope of the request. ODA had an obligation under Regulation 9(1) to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The extended answers that ODA gave, both in responding to the initial request and subsequently, complied with this obligation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0379982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530773

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Environment Agency for the current draft of the proposed Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order it submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The Environment Agency initially refused to disclose the draft Order on the grounds that it did not hold it as it was ‘owned’ by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Environment Agency contacted the complainant and apologised for misunderstanding his request and confirmed that it did in fact hold a copy of the draft Order. However, it said that it intended to withhold it under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it would be published in the future and the public interest was balanced against disclosure. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Environment Agency disclosed a copy of the draft Order requested by the complainant. The Commissioner noted that the Environment Agency’s handling of the request resulted in a procedural breach of section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to respond to the information request promptly and in any event within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50287571

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.530323

Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Apr 2012

The complainant requested information about employees who had been suspended during a specified period. Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board (‘the Health Board’) provided some information, stating some information was not held and withheld other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA for the non disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has, however, identified some procedural issues surrounding the Health Board’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423868

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.529376

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50712791: ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant requested information about prosecutions for knife crime. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50712791

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602535

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50712792: ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant requested statistical information about arrested persons who have been released whilst under investigation. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50712792

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602536