ICO The complainant requested information about a named district judge. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 32(3), court records, 40(5), personal information and 44(2), prohibitions on disclosure of FOIA in respect of parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the request. The MOJ initially said it did not hold any information in respect of part 5, but changed its position during the investigation and instead relied on section 12(1), the cost exclusion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on sections 40(5) and 12(1) to refuse this request. As he has found sections 40(5) and 12(1) to be engaged, he has not considered the MOJ’s reliance on the other exemptions. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50597828
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559058 br>