Category: Information

The Applicant and South Ayrshire Council: SIC 27 Feb 2020

On 9 September 2019, the Applicant asked South Ayrshire Council (the Council) for all notes made by Council employees in relation to a specified planning application. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 040 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.654001

St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Aug 2011

The complainant made a request to St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) for copies of all compromise agreements the Trust has entered into with doctors of any grade and the reasons why those compromise agreements were entered into. The Trust provided three compromise agreements to the complainant however they contained a number of redactions made under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the redactions under section 40(2) of the Act were correctly made in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0213 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50380673

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.530788

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding the use of firearms by foreign protection officers who accompany Heads of State (and other individuals) on visits to the UK. The Home Office refused to confirm whether or not it held information falling within the scope of the complainant’s requests relying on, amongst other exemptions, section 23(5) – information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters – and section 24(2) – of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Home Office is entitled to rely on both exemptions as a basis upon which to refuse to confirm whether or not it holds the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50443643

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529921

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Sep 2013

The complainant has requested information about the handling of a complaint concerning the contents of a radio programme broadcast in 2006. 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.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50504539

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.528631

Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Information Tribunal and Information Commissioner: Admn 23 Nov 2006

The parties disputed the functions of the Commissioner in respect of personal data held by the SSHD for which he claimed exemption from disclosure on the ground of national security. The applicant had sought copies of personal data held about himself, and the Secretary had claimed exemption but had said that the Minister would not inform the data subject that he relied upon section 28 and it supplied only redacted information to the Commissioner. The Commissioner said this would remove the subject’s opportunity to appeal, and he served a notice under section 43 on the Secretary. The Minister served a s28 notice, and the appeal to the tribunal was issued, but he then argued that ‘issues of national security are matters for the member states and are therefore accordingly excluded from control under the Directive. Section 28 makes it plain that the question of whether or not national security is engaged in relation to the disclosure of any material is a matter to be determined objectively. Exemption from disclosure either is or is not required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.’
Held: The minister’s argument and appeal was rejected: ‘section 51(1) . . entitles, if not requires, the Commissioner, if he considers it appropriate, to ‘check’ (to use the language of the Directive) whether an exemption under section 28 has been properly claimed. If it has not, it is a necessary corollary that the data controller has not ‘observed’ the requirements of the Act. He has failed to give the data subject access to material which is not exempt by reason of section 28. As the Tribunal has said, the consequence is that the Commissioner is entitled to seek to satisfy himself that the material is indeed exempt under section 28.’ Article 3 did not simply take matters of national security out of the purview of the Directive. If it did, article 13 would have no purpose.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2958 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 58, [2007] 2 All ER 703

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 28(4) 51(1), Directive 95/46 EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with the regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.246381

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Aug 2011

The complainant asked London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to provide information relating to its online payment system. The public authority failed to respond to the request within the time limit set out at section 10(1) of the Act. However, as it has now responded the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50383685

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.530740

The Open Rights Group and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: CA 26 May 2021

This appeal is concerned with the lawfulness of statutory restrictions on data protection rights, in the context of immigration. By paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘DPA 2018’) Parliament enacted ‘the Immigration Exemption’. This disapplies some data protection rights where their application would be likely to prejudice immigration control.

Judges:

Lord Justice Underhill
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))
Lord Justice Singh
And
Lord Justice Warby

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 800, [2021] 1 WLR 3611, [2021] WLR(D) 303

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulation, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Immigration, European, Human Rights

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.662794

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50423423: ICO 15 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant has requested the amount paid for the broadcasting rights to the 2014 Commonwealth Games. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423423

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529149

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jan 2012

The complainant wrote to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and requested a full list of all Veterinary practices listed as Tier 2 and 3 hospitals in the UK. He did not receive a response within 20 working days and referred the case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). After the Commissioner’s intervention, a response was issued. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a decision notice to record the unacceptable delays that he experienced. The Commissioner finds that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons breached section 10(1) because it failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA in 20 working days. It also breached sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b) in failing to issue a complete refusal notice within the same time period. He does not require any remedial steps to be taken because an appropriate response has now been issued.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50416860

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529117

Bbc (Decision Notice) FS50421691: ICO 15 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested information concerning the prize featured on the BBC Three competition show Hot Like Us. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0054 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529147

Manshouri v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 17 Nov 2014

SIC Correspondence relating to legal opinion regarding Portobello Park – On 5 March 2014, Ms Elizabeth Manshouri (Ms Manshouri) asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for all information held, covering a specified time period, relating to permission to build on Portobello Park.
The Council responded by providing Ms Manshouri with information, subject to the redaction of personal details. The Commissioner investigated and accepted that the Council had provided Ms Manshouri with all the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 236 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.542661

Scott v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 17 Nov 2014

On 28 March 2014, Mr Scott asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for the number of officers, by rank, deployed within the Scottish Borders Council area on a number of shifts between specific times on specific dates.
Police Scotland withheld the information on the basis that disclosure would substantially prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold the information requested.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 235 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.542647

Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant requested information from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He asked for information about patients treated who were not eligible for NHS treatment and how they were charged. The Trust responded that it considered that the exclusion found in section 12(1) of FOIA applied, because it could not obtain the information within the cost limit. The complainant complained to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly relied on section 12(1). However, it failed to offer reasonable advice and assistance and so breached the requirements of section 16(1). The Commissioner has considered what would constitute reasonable advice and assistance and has concluded that there are only two possible options. He has elected to say what they are in this decision notice and therefore used his discretion not to order any remedial steps in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50422703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529166

Teignbridge District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant requested the following: details of procedures followed by Teignbridge District Council’s Planning Service Lead officer in determining a planning application submitted by the complainant’s client; details of an investigation into a complaint made by the complainant’s client against the PSL and the name of the handling solicitor; and a copy of the PSL’s employment contract, details of their remuneration. The complainant also asked for confirmation that the PSL was leaving the council’s employment and details of any associated severance/remuneration package. The Commissioner’s decision is the following: in failing to provide details of the investigation report within 20 working days and failing to handle this element of the request under the correct legislation, the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR; in relation to the request for details of the investigation report, in issuing a refusal under the FOIA and failing to correct this at the internal review, the council breached regulation 14 of the EIR; in relation to the request for details of the PSL’s severance package, the council correctly relied upon section 40(2) of the FOIA in withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0028 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50419393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529132

Monitor (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2007

ICO The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between Monitor and two other public authorities, namely Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust and the South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority for the twelve months prior to February 2005. The complainant also asked for minutes of any meetings involving Monitor and the two other public authorities. During this period Monitor was considering Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust’s application to become a foundation hospital trust. The public authority provided the complainant with several documents but redacted parts of a number of these documents on the basis of section 40 and 41. Having reviewed the redacted information the Commissioner is satisfied that section 41 has been applied correctly in regard to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also decided that a small portion of the redacted information was not exempt by either section 40 or 41, but this information has now been communicated to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50146950

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.532964

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant requested a timeline of an investigation carried out by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI). PONI initially refused the request under section 44 of the Act, but released the information following an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that PONI failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to provide the requested information to the complainant within the statutory time for compliance. However, as the information has now been provided the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50417819

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.529111

BBC: ICO 7 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested information about a particular report that was leaked to the BBC. 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: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50702084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.602365

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 2 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information about complaints, assessments, investigations and individuals. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) says it is not obliged to comply with the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO is not obliged to comply with the requests under section 12(1). The Commissioner is satisfied that PHSO met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50640264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579885

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 8 Feb 2017

EAT The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan District Council (RMBC)’s consultation process in relation to its borough plan. RMBC denied holding relevant information. The complainant disputed RMBC’s position with respect to some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that RMBC did not hold information within those parts of the request and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50657166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579891

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 20 Feb 2017

On 2 March 2016 the complainant requested information from Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about complaints that it has received. On 22 November 2016, PHSO confirmed it holds related information and released this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO: has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. PHSO has now provided the complainant with a response and the Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50659238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579886

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50641988: ICO 1 Feb 2017

The complainant has requested the identity of the Deputy Chairman of a named Magistrates’ Court Advisory Committee and who was said to have dealt with his complaint. The Ministry of Justice relied upon the section 14(1) exemption of FOIA in refusing the request. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice had applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption correctly. She therefore does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50641988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579876

Home Office (Central Government) FS50642506: ICO 1 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant requested the reports made by the managers of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre about the conditions under which certain detainees were held for the month of March 2014. The Home Office provided extracts giving some information from the relevant reports but declined to provide the complete reports in full. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied the section 31(1) FOIA (law enforcement) exemption correctly. In the light of her findings in relation to section 31 FOIA, the Commissioner did not proceed to consider application by the Home Office of the section 40(2) FOIA (personal information) exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50642506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579867

Home Office (Central Government) FS50650229: ICO 1 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50650229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579868

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50643992: ICO 1 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant made three requests for information to the Ministry of Justice in which he requested information about the conduct of court proceedings by members of the judiciary. The Ministry of Justice relied upon the section 14(1) exemption of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice had applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption correctly. She therefore does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation. However she also found that the Ministry of Justice had delayed its initial response to one of the requests (request 2 – FS50646503) for too long and, in so doing, had breached section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50643992, FS506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579877

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50654869: ICO 1 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to staff and inmate numbers at HMP Northumberland. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654869

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579878

Department for Communities (Central Government) FS50664396: ICO 28 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50664396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579846

Department for Communities (Central Government) FS50662370: ICO 28 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50662370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579845

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government): ICO 22 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) relating to voluntary exit payments of Defra senior civil servants. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50644636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579850

Department for Communities (Central Government) FS50660246: ICO 28 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50660246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579844

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government): ICO 8 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to any discussions or meetings that took place from January 2014 onwards relating to the Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts paper. To date DEFRA has not responded to this request. The Commissioner therefore finds DEFRA in breach of section 10 of the FOIA and requires it to issue a full response to the complainant in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50655328

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579851

Department for Communities (Central Government) FS50664411: ICO 28 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50664411

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579847

Bbc (Other): ICO 16 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant has requested listening figures for BBC Radio 4 Moneybox. The BBC explained that 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 within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50663858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579832

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 28 Feb 2017

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of a file dating from 1974 concerning Diego Garcia. He also requested a list of the file’s contents. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the file, and a list of its contents, on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c), 27(1)(d) and 27(2) (international relations), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office provided the complainant with a small amount of information contained in the file which it was established was in effect already in the public domain. The Commissioner has concluded that the remaining information contained in the file is exempt from disclosure of the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c) and 27(1)(d). The Commissioner is also satisfied that a list of the file’s contents is also exempt from disclosure on the basis of the same exemptions.
FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50627706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579836