Information Commissioners Office (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2014

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Richard Thomas, the previous Information Commissioner, since 1 January 2011. This was later refined to focus on correspondence relating to the investigations into phone hacking by private investigators and the Leveson Inquiry into press standards. The ICO refused the request by applying section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs to all the correspondence. It also withheld some information under section 40(2) on the basis that it constituted the personal data of a third party and its disclosure would breach the Data Protect Act 1998 (DPA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the ICO did disclose some information. The ICO accepted that some of that information should have been disclosed at the time of the request. In respect of the other information which it disclosed the ICO maintained that it was correct to withhold it at the time of the request under section 36, but that with the passage of time, the public interest now favoured disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36. Any information to which section 36 does not apply is covered by section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50493441
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.527605