Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50601984: ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant made a three part request about General Civil Restraint Orders (‘GCROs’) issued by the Court of Appeal over a specified time period. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) responded to him on three separate occasions, but ultimately refused to provide the information requested in part one of the request citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. It relied on section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) in response to part two for ‘live’ GRCOs and section 40(2) for those which had expired. For part three of the request, the MOJ provided a discretionary response outside of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has provided inaccurate and misleading information in relation to part one. He finds that sections 21 and 40(2) are not engaged in relation to the names of the judges and that section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to some names of the individuals in part two. He also finds that the MOJ did not respond to part three of the request in accordance with FOIA. He does uphold the MOJ’s reliance on section 21 in relation to the names of individuals with GCROs from the Court of Appeal which are currently in force. He requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response as set out in the ‘steps’ in the decision notice.
FOI 21: Partly upheld FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601984
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560837

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50605230: ICO 25 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to archived digital records. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. As MoJ has now responded, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50605230
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560839

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50603218: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) relating to the numbers of prisoners released in error since 2013, together with associated details. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603218
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560838

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50609417: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the number of applications to make a child a ward of court that have been made due to fear of radicalisation. To date she has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50609417
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560841

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a previous request made under the FOIA. The Home Office refused to comply with the request because it considered it vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1).
FOI 14: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50577763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560820

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a review carried out of English language test suppliers and a review of the ‘Life in the UK Test’. The Home Office failed to substantively respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Home Office is now required to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607090
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560823

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50576113: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information relating to a job re-grading exercise. The MoJ cited section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50576113
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560834

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50598703: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about a named councillor who is also a Justice of the Peace/Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 40(5) to refuse this request. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50598703
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560835

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 19 Jan 2016

IC The complainant requested information relating to any contact that the spouse of an MP, who is also employed by that MP, has had with the Home Office as part of that employment. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is not engaged and so the Home Office is now required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial as to whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to write to the complainant with confirmation or denial as to whether the requested information is held. In relation to any information that is held, this should either be disclosed to the complainant, or the complainant informed of the grounds on which the information is withheld.
FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603865
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560822

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested a list of film or television projects that the Home Office had communicated with during 2013 to 2015. The Home Office failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to this request within 20 working days of receipt. The Home Office is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608803
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560824

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a meeting that occurred on 23 March 2011. The Home Office denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596280
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560821

BBC (Other): ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested the cost of entries to the Sony Radio Academy Awards. 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: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560777

BBC (Other): ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested the number of seats available for each ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ recording. 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 was excluded from FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50605213
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560776

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50569974: ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information in relation to an incident that happened within his block of flats. The council provided some information to part of his request and refused to provide the CCTV footage as it considered it third party personal data. Following a complaint to the Commissioner, it was clarified that it was not the CCTV footage, but the timeframes of the incidents that the complainant was seeking for the parts refused by the council. The council, after clarification of what was actually being sought, no longer looked to refuse the request as third party personal data and provided the timeframe for one of the 3 incidents, and stated the information was not held for the other two. Following enquiries by the Commissioner, his decision is that the council does hold information in order to provide a response to parts 1 and 3 of the request and is satisfied with the time provided for part 2 of his request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant with regards to parts 1 and 3 of his request as outlined in paragraph 30 and 31 of this decision notice. 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 1: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50569974
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560779

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50597770: ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a funding grant offer made to First Press (Plastic Moulders) Ltd. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has incorrectly applied both the exemption where disclosure would prejudice commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA and the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information redacted from the requested funding offer letter. 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.
FOI 41: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50597770
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560780

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0598170: ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested to view a copy of an application form made by his neighbour to the council under the Building Regulations 2010 relating to a loft conversion. The council applied Regulation 13(1) to withhold the information (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that council has correctly applied Regulation 13(1) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 13(1): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0598170
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560778

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jul 2006

The complainant requested all papers and information regarding a complaint he had previously made. The BBC responded claiming that the information had been destroyed in line with their retention schedule. The complainant then widened his request to include information relating to the destruction of this complaint file; however the BBC misunderstood this element of the request and did not confirm that they held this information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested initially is not held, by he finds the BBC in breach of section 1 of the Act with regard to the widened request and requires that they take steps to remedy this. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50087682
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.533479

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2007

The complainant made a number of information requests to the public authority during a short period of time. The public authority refused these requests as they were considered vexatious. The Commissioner finds that the requests have the effect of harassing the public authority and that they can be fairly characterised as obsessive. The Commissioner upholds the refusal of these requests as vexatious and does not require the public authority to take any further action. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50086298
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.532860

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2007

The complainant requested information in respect of the public authority’s legal advice concerning the compliance of the procedures for collecting the Television Licence fee with the Human Rights Act. The public authority refused the information request on the grounds that the information requested is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege under section 42 of the Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this case the Commissioner finds that section 42 applies and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore, in so far as the public authority correctly applied the exemption under section 42 of the Act, it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1).
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50103099
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.532799

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jul 2007

The complainant asked for the total cost of On the Air, an animated series produced by Flickerpix, and a breakdown of this cost. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that the information was held for the purposes of journalism art and literature. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held the Commissioner is satisfied that it falls within the scope of the Act but that it is exempt from disclosure under section 43. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50133791
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.532977

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 30 May 2007

The complainant requested information concerning loans made between subsidiaries of the public authority. In response to this, the public authority stated that its subsidiaries are not covered by the Act. The Commissioner finds that wholly owned subsidiaries of the public authority are not subject to the Act and, therefore, information held by these subsidiaries cannot be accessed via the Act. The Commissioner also finds that recorded information falling within the scope of the request is not held by the public authority.
FOI 6: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50082246
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.532920

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Feb 2007

The complainant requested information concerning legal advice received by the public authority on the issue of whether the television licence fee is compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. The public authority confirmed that information falling within the scope of this request is held by it. However, this information was withheld on the grounds that it attracted legal professional privilege and thus that the exemption provided by section 42 applied. The public authority also found that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 42 applies to the information requested in this case. The Commissioner further finds that in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, the Commissioner also found that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 17 of the Act pertaining to refusal notices. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50081402
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.532827

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant has requested the salary of three named newsreaders. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall under the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50418148
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.529038

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2006

The complainant requested a copy of a report prepared by the Chief Operating Officer of the BBC into expenses claimed by Alan Yentob. The BBC withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under terms of sections 40(2) and (3) of the Act (personal information). The Commissioner found that the release of the information in the report would contravene sections 40(2)(a) and (3)(a) because the first data protection principle relating to fairness would be breached by disclosure. He concluded that the BBC had acted in accordance with the Act in withholding the information in the report.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50068026
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.533478

Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 18 Jul 2018

The complainant requested information about a particular police investigation. South Wales Police refused to confirm nor deny holding any information citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) and 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has applied section 40(5) of the FOIA appropriately to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50720799
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.621304

L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: SC 29 Oct 2009

Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements

The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private life. The enhanced record revealed that the claimant’s son had been placed on the child protection register to protect him not from the claimant but from his father. The claimant lost her job.
Held: Some elements of the information disclosed was not public, and the claimant’s article 8 rights were engaged. The effect of X v West Midlands Police tilted the balance too far in favour of disclosure: ‘It has encouraged the idea that priority must be given to the social need to protect the vulnerable as against the right to respect for private life of the applicant. This is clearly shown by the way the rating table in MP9 is constructed and by Det.Supt. Morris’s minute of 2 December 2004. The words ‘ought to be included’ in section 115(7)(b) require to be given much greater attention. They must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the applicant’s Convention right and that of any third party who may be affected by the disclosure: Human Rights Act 1998 Act, section 3(1).’
The advice given to police officers should be changed to re-balance the presumptions made, reflecting better the article 8 rights of the applicants. However a declaration as to incompatibility was refused, and the decision was not quashed, since the information disclosed was true and could properly be taken into an account by an employer. Before disclosing, the officer must consider that the information might be relevant and also that it ought to be disclosed.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Saville, Lord Scott, Lord Brown, Lord Neuberger
[2009] UKSC 3, [2010] Fam Law 21, [2010] 1 All ER 113, [2009] 3 WLR 1056, [2010] AC 410, [2010] 2 FCR 25, [2010] PTSR 245, 2 CCL Rep 573, [2010] HRLR 7, 28 BHRC 391, [2010] UKHRR 115, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 573, UKSC 2009/0104
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Police Act 1997 115(7), European Convention on Human Rights 8, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 4(2), Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Criminal Justice Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
DisapprovedRegina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had been accused of offences, but the prosecution had been discontinued when the child victims had failed to identify him. The police had nevertheless notified potential employers and he had been unable to obtain work as a social . .
At First InstanceL, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 19-Mar-2006
The court considered the duties on the respondent in providing an enhanced criminal record certificate. In one case, the claimant had brought up her son who was made subject to child protection procedures for neglect. Her job involved supervising . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 1-Mar-2007
The court considered the proper content of an enhanced criminal record certificate. The claimant said that it should contain only matter relating to actual or potential criminal activity.
Held: As to the meaning of section 115: ‘if Parliament . .
CitedWright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
CitedSmart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson CA 25-Jan-2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights . .
CitedX v Iceland ECHR 18-May-1976
The right to respect for private life was held to ‘comprise also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings’. . .
CitedMarckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
CitedNiemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
CitedLondon Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
CitedSidabras And Dziautas v Lithuania ECHR 27-Jul-2004
Former KGB officers complained that they were banned, not only from public sector employment, but also from many private sector posts. This ‘affected [their] ability to develop relationships with the outside world to a very significant degree, and . .
CitedCemalettin Canli v Turkey ECHR 18-Nov-2008
The Court found interference in the applicant’s right to respect of his private life in that the police prepared and submitted to a domestic court an inaccurate report in the context of criminal proceedings against him. . .
CitedRegina v Local Authority and Police Authority in the Midlands, ex parte LM 2000
The court considered the retention of information about an unsubstantiated child sexual abuse allegation. . .
CitedRegina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 23-Jan-2004
The claimant, a social worker, had been accused of two offences of indecency with children, but the complainants had failed to identify him. The respondent later disclosed those allegations when called upon to provide an enhanced criminal record . .
CitedPinnington, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police Admn 31-Jul-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the police to include in response to the enhanced criminal record request details of three allegations made but not proceeded with.
Held: By the terms of the statute it is for the chief . .
CitedSciacca v Italy ECHR 11-Jan-2005
The court was asked whether the applicant’s rights under Article 8 had been infringed by the release to the press of an identity photograph taken of her by the Italian Revenue Police while she was under arrest and investigation for various criminal . .
CitedReklos and Davourlis v Greece ECHR 15-Jan-2009
(Press release) The court considered the rights when photographs were taken in public: ‘the court finds that it is not insignificant that the photographer was able to keep the negatives of the offending photographs, in spite of the express request . .

Cited by:
CitedBH v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 17-Nov-2009
The claimant was subject to a non-derogating control order under the 2005 Act. A relaxation was sought to allow him to visit his solicitors. But was offered subject to conditions which included a requirement that he be subject to a personal search. . .
CitedSheikh and Another v Dogan and Others ChD 17-Nov-2009
The judge had reserved his judgment, but had since received further voluminous representations from a party.
Held: None of the matters raised suggested a proper reason for exercising the jurisdiction given by In re Barrell. The claimant was . .
CitedC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 19-Jan-2011
The Chief Constable appealed against an order made against him on the disclosure made on replying to an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate request, of unproven sexual misconduct allegations against the claimant. The judge had found the disclosure . .
CitedGC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
BindingT, Regina (on The Application of) v Greater Manchester Police and Another Admn 9-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the terms of an enhanced Criminal Records Certificate issued by the defendant. He had been warned in 2002 for suspicion of theft of two cycles. The record had been stepped down in 2009, but then re-instated. He wished to . .
CitedStratton, Regina (on The Application of) v Thames Valley Police Admn 7-Jun-2013
The claimant requested the court to set aside a caution accepted by her, when she said that she had not understood the serious consequences and had not admitted the offence.
Held: It was for each Chief Constable to draft his own policy, but . .
CitedCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
CitedNT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
CitedAR, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The appellant had been tried for and acquitted on a criminal charge. He now challenged the disclosure by the respondent of the charge in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate.
Held: His appeal failed. The critical question was whether the . .
CitedGallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Each appellant complained of the disclosure by the respondent of very old and minor offences to potential employers, destroying prospects of finding work. Two statutory schemes were challenged, raising two separate questions, namely whether any . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.377319

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)): ICO 19 Nov 2015

ICO The complainant has requested full details of the Lead Provider Framework submission from Yorkshire and Humber Commissioning Support. The complainant said that this should include a copy of the submission and the documents relating to the appraisal of the bid including the scoring sheets that were completed. NHS England refused to provide the requested information under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England incorrectly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the contents of the withheld submission but correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the scoring document. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld submission. 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 43: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586708
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556719

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50596290: ICO 12 Nov 2015

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information relating to courts allocation of prisoners to prisons. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the MOJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to respond to the request. The MOJ 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50596290
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556715

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50587518: ICO 11 Nov 2015

ICO Central government
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to advice provided on draft proposed legislation to regulate the provision of electricity on Sark. The MoJ initially withheld the information on the basis of section 27 of FOIA (international relations). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it also relied on section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 27(1)(a). He has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 27: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587518
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556713

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 24 Nov 2015

ICO The complainant requested materials prepared for Home Office Ministers concerning asylum claims relating to the sexuality of claimants. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) was cited correctly and so the Home Office was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584724
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556699

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50592157: ICO 26 Nov 2015

ICO Central government
The complainant requested information about the Macur Review. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) handled the request outside FOIA as ‘official correspondence’ and advised the complainant that the Macur Review is not covered by FOIA and that the MOJ is not responsible for the Review information, providing a link to the Review website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request constitutes a valid request under FOIA and he therefore requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response in compliance with the FOIA set out in paragraph 7.
FOI 8: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50592157
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556714

Arun District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 25 Nov 2015

The complainant has made a request to Arun District Council (‘the council’) for information about a community group that is represented on the Bognor Regis Regeneration Board. The council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b), but should also have cited section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner has also identified that the council breached the requirement of regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585926
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556672

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50559082: ICO 24 Nov 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to the appointment of qualified persons within the Public and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The Cabinet Office refused this request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it considered complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act. However, the Cabinet Office breached section 16 of the Act as it failed to give adequate advice and assistance to the complainant when handling her request. The Cabinet Office has also breached section 17(5) of the Act as it did not provide its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to issue a new response as a separate request with a reduced scope has already been submitted by the complainant.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50559082
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556677

Broxbourne Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 25 Nov 2015

IC The complainant has requested information from Broxbourne Borough Council which concerns the costs it incurred in bringing a prosecution against a named person for dropping a piece of orange peel. The Commissioner has investigated why the costs disclosed to the complainant are different from the costs the Council disclosed to the Hertford Mercury in its press release. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. He requires no further action to be taken in respect of this matter.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50595187
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556675

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50591877: ICO 22 Oct 2015

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, section 40(5), personal information and 44(2), prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 40(5) to refuse this request. As he has found section 40(5) to be engaged, he has not considered the MOJ’s reliance on the other exemptions. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591877
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555968

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50589044: ICO 20 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested the metadata of the correspondence between the Legal Service Commission and particular legal organisations in the Luton area within a specified timeframe. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused the request, citing the exemptions in sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 44(1)(c) (prohibitions of disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 44. His decision is that it was entitled to apply section 44(1)(c) to the requested information. However, he finds that MoJ breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by failing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information within the statutory time limit. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589044
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555967

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50576823: ICO 20 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to proceedings in the County Courts involving named defendants. The MOJ refused to provide the requested information relying on section 32(1)(a), (b) and (c) (court records) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(c). The Commissioner has concluded that MoJ is entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c) to withhold the information. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 32: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576823
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555965

Leeds City Council FS50585043: ICO 8 Oct 2015

(Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information concerning the closed or ended Council Tax accounts where the liable party is deceased and where the account is in credit. The complainant requires this information from 1993 to 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request by virtue of section 12 of the FOIA – where to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit provided by section 3(2) of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in respect of this matter.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585043
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555960

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 20 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested information about plots to assassinate Julian Assange. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the complainant under the FOIA. The Home Office 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50596080
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555952

Home Office (Central Government) FS50581473: ICO 7 Oct 2015

The complainant requested a report written and submitted to the Home Secretary by a former member of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel about the operation of that Panel. The Home Office withheld this information under the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 36(2)(b)(ii) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581473
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555947

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 6 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a change in the process by which failed asylum seekers may make further submissions in support of their claim. The Home Office withheld this information under the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and to the free and frank exchange of views) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision in relation to almost the entirety of the withheld information is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were cited correctly and so the Home Office was not obliged to disclose this information. However, in relation to one document the conclusion of the Commissioner is that these exemptions are not engaged and so the Home Office is now required to disclose this information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the 13 January 2015 letter. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 36: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584196
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555949

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government ): ICO 7 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about a meeting between [named company] and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to discuss the provision of insurance to tax advisers and in particular one named company. HMRC neither confirmed nor denied that it held information falling within the scope of the request citing FOIA section 44(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. He does not require any further steps to be taken.
FOI 44: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581233
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555944

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50585633: ICO 27 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information on whether GMC staff have private medical insurance. The GMC refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to rely on section 14(1). The GMC is not required to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585633
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555936

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 13 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about a Speedwatch Coordinator and other Speedwatch-related matters from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’). The Constabulary provided some information, withheld some by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) and advised that further information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that, where cited, section 40(2) is properly engaged. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, where claimed no further information is held. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587581
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555897

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 19 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of a street lighting contract. Cambridgeshire County Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable. The Complainant asked the Commissioner to determine whether the council was correct to refuse the request and whether it should have responded under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought falls under the EIR and has determined that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is not engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority issue a new response to the complainant’s request without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. 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.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0586068
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555899

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 6 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested information held on a database by the council relating to Global Information System (GIS) data on rights of way. The council applied Regulation 6(1)(b) as it argues that this information is publicly available from its online interactive map. It also applied Regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion) to information held on its database which is not available from the map. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 6(1)(b) to the information. He has decided that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) to the ‘Notes’ field and the CCC Maintainable’ field of the database, and Regulation 12(4)(d) to the ‘CCC Maintainable’ field. He has however decided that the council was not correct to apply either of these exceptions to the ‘Last Checked’ field of the database. The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide its response to the request within 20 working days. The council also did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that its response to a request to review its decision was not provided within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information from the database to the complainant, other than information held within the ‘Notes’ field and the ‘CCC Maintainable’ field of the database. 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.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 6(1)(b): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Partly upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0557948
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555898

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50584670: ICO 14 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information about public health funerals undertaken by Birmingham City Council, and in particular, he seeks the names and addresses of the deceased persons and the dates of their funerals. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has properly applied section 31(1)(a) to the requested information in this case. The Council is therefore entitled to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584670
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555886

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0585505: ICO 28 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information held by Birmingham City Council in connection with planning application 2014/09159/PA. This concerns the change of use of a residential property to a place of worship and faith-based educational institution. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold certain pieces of recorded information in reliance on Regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR. He also finds that the Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR, where it has advised the complainant that it does not hold certain other pieces of information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 13: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0585505
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555885

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information redacted from an open file in the National Archives and retained by the public authority. The authority denied the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information redacted from file PREM 11/4443 (the withheld information) in reliance on the exemption at section 37(1)(a) FOIA. No steps required.
FOI 37: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573097
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555892

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about whether certain named individuals, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been contacted by the Chilcot Inquiry as part of the Maxwellisation process. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information within the scope of the request citing section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not obliged to provide confirmation or denial in response to the complainant’s request by virtue of section of 41(2). No steps are required.
FOI 41: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578135
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555893

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50587849: ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information held by Birmingham City Council. The requested information relates to a complaint made by the complainant to Moor Hall Primary School which concerns the school’s charging policy for the Moorhens before and after-school club. The Council determined that the requested information was subject to legal professional privilege and refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has appropriately applied section 42 to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555887

BBC (Other): ICO 22 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the number of complaints made against the NHS question put to parliamentary candidates during a local radio programme in April 2015. 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: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588897
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555881

BBC (Other) FS50590819: ICO 21 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the payments to the contributors, viewing figures and the number of complaints made against the programme ‘Welsh Heartland: The Llyn Peninsula’. 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: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50590819
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555882

BBC (Other) FS50583724: ICO 21 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested copies of all communications from the Conservative Party about the Election in May 2015. 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 was excluded from FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583724
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555879

BBC (Other): ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the number of complaints made about perceived political bias. 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 steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555883

BBC (Other): ICO 1 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant made a number of requests to the BBC for information about its coverage of the 2015 General Election. 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: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587101
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555880

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50593788: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about the cost of prison food and about the menus typically available to prisoners. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has breached the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. MoJ 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: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593788
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555828

East Devon District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has made a request to East Devon District Council (‘the council’) for information about the officers and members involved in a previous information request. The council disclosed held information, but the complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority has disclosed all relevant held information. However, in failing to provide held information within the time for compliance, it has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573485
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555797

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50573033: ICO 15 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested a list of convicted corporations from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) held on a specified database. The MOJ refused to provide the information in its entirety, relying on section 32 (court records), section 40(2) (personal information), and section 43(2) (commercial interests).The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 32(1)(c) and 32(2)(b) of FOIA are engaged. He has therefore not considered the MOJ’s reliance on the other exemptions. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
FOI 32: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573033
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555825

Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to meetings the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (the ‘PCC’) held with members of the public. The PCC refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCC cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. However, he has also found that the PCC did not comply with its obligation under section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance to the requester as it did not provide guidance as to how the complainant’s request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. It is now required to respond to the complainant with this advice. The Commissioner requires the PCC to write to the complainant with advice as to how his request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. The PCC 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576137
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555842

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) information about its handling of a complaint case. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA, the PHSO has breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. He requires the PHSO to issue a response to the complainant’s information request under the FOIA. The PHSO 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582089
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555839

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50571695: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant made three requests for information to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused a previous request under section 14 of the FOIA and that refusal was upheld by the Commissioner. The MoJ are now relying on section 17(6) of the FOIA to not respond to these three further requests for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly relied on section 17(6) of the FOIA and so was not obliged to respond to the three information requests in question. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 17: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571695
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555824

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50593831: ICO 21 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about the number of cases struck out as a result of administrative errors. The MOJ sought further clarification of the request which the complainant provided on two occasions. However, the MOJ said it requires the complainant to clarify the information she is seeking before it can respond; citing section 1(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 1(3) of FOIA. However, as the MOJ failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days framework it thereby breached section 10(1) of FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593831
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555829

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50583802: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information about prisoners’ Incentives and Earned Privileges (‘IEP’) status from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). This request was refused by the MOJ on the basis that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated and has found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information. However, the MOJ failed to provide its refusal to respond within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require the MOJ to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583802
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555826

Leeds City Council FS50585444: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested copies of marriage notices. Leeds City Council (the council) refused the request relying on section 21 of the FOIA, as it determined that the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 21 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 21: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585444
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555817

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50583876: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to telephone calls made to a named third party. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information citing section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i). He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583876
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555827

Leeds City Council FS50574398: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant requested information about the Head of Internal Audit and information with regards to staff suspensions. Leeds City Council (the council) provided some information and initially refused the remaining under section 40(5) of the FOIA – to neither confirm nor deny – and section 21 of the FOIA – information reasonably accessible by other means. It later amended its refusal under section 40(5) to instead rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the council amended its refusal back to section 40(5) of the FOIA and no longer sought to rely on section 21 of the FOIA, providing the information to that part of the request. The complainant asked the Commissioner to determine the council’s reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50574398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555816

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50584524: ICO 19 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the number of barring orders made in a specified time period. The MoJ cited section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584524
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555737

BBC (Other): ICO 24 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about statistics broadcast on a particular BBC television programme. The BBC says that the information is excluded from the FOIA because it is held for the purpose of ‘journalism, art or literature’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is derogated and the BBC is not obliged to comply with the request under the FOIA. He does not require the BBC to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589802
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555763

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 16 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to meetings and correspondence from its internal groups responsible for elections. The Cabinet Office acknowledged the complainant’s request but has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant under the Act. 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50592004
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555774

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0574954: ICO 8 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested copies of the complete correspondence that Birmingham City Council received from the China Railways Group Limited in respect of the HS2 rail proposals. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information which the complainant seeks and it is therefore entitled to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0574954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555765

BBC (Other): ICO 16 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information on a search warrant executed by the Metropolitan Police. 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: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585481
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555762

Buckinghamshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 7 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information concerning the 11+ test arrangements for Buckinghamshire Schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Buckinghamshire County Council does not hold the information requested by the complainant for any of its own purposes. By virtue of section 3(2) of the FOIA, the Council is not required to disclose the information it holds. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 3: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50555840
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555772

BBC (Other): ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about the number of video auditions to join the presenting team of ‘Top Gear’. The BBC explained that the 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 is not caught by the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593758
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555764

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50590627: ICO 20 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a court proceeding. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to respond and it is now required to provide a response. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the request. The MoJ 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50590627
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555738

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50582481: ICO 20 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information about small claims in the County Court. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) passed the request to Plymouth County Court to respond to under the ‘normal course of business.’ The Court then provided the complainant with a leaflet which it said addressed her request. The complainant, however, disagreed and twice requested the MOJ to carry out an internal review which the MOJ refused because it said that the request had not been handled under the FOIA. Whilst the Commissioner is satisfied that the request constitutes a valid request under FOIA, he has concluded that the request was legitimately dealt with in the normal course of business. He also finds that the request has been answered and that the complainant did not suffer any detriment as a result of the way in which the request was handled by the MOJ. He does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 16: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582481
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555736

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 12 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested training materials for Home Office officials about immigration law. The Home Office disclosed the majority of the requested information, but withheld the remainder under the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls), 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information was withheld incorrectly and must now be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose to the complainant the withheld information. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565161
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555726

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50564749: ICO 19 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the gender split of applicants applying for Non Molestation Orders (NMOs) and Occupancy Orders from 1st Jan 2011 to 30th June 2014. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided exact figures where the numbers exceeded five but refused to provide figures less than five on the basis that individuals could be identified and section 40(2) was therefore engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold figures less than five. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50564749
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555734

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50551750: ICO 25 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to grants of compensation to the family of a man wrongly convicted of murder. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request, but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ incorrectly applied section 40(2) to some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires MoJ to disclose to the complainant the information identified at paragraph 81 of this decision notice. The MoJ 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 40: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50551750
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555733