Tag: Information

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Aug 2010

The complainant originally submitted a request to the Crown Prosecution Service the public authority for information relating to a trial during 1997 and 1998. This was refused under the exemptions at sections 30 (criminal proceedings) and 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He subsequently made a refined request which the public authority did not respond to within the terms of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) of the Act and must now do so within 35 calendar days of the date of this Notice. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50293914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.531582

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 7 Nov 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for correspondence David Beckham or his representatives may have exchanged with the department over the period January 2011 to March 2014. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on this exemption as a basis to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50685040

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.602427

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 6 Mar 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the Service Inquiry report into the deaths of three soldiers in the Brecon Beacons in July 2013 along with a copy of the Non-Statutory Inquiry report. The MOD argued that the request was vexatious because complying with it would place a grossly oppressive burden on it. It therefore refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request on this basis.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50704825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.617632

Pubs Code Adjudicator (Central Government): ICO 23 Jul 2018

In a series of 17 requests, the complainant has requested information about various aspects of the Pubs Code Adjudicator’s performance. The Pubs Code Adjudicator (the PCA) released some information. It withheld information within the scope of requests 9, 10 and 15 under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The PCA has also withheld information falling within the scope of requests 3 and 8 under section 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The PCA does not hold the information requested in requests 9 and 10. The information requested in requests 3, 8 and 15 does not engage section 41(1). Section 40(2) cannot be applied to request 15. The Commissioner requires the PCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the information requested in requests 3, 8 and 15.
FOI 40: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50711347

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.621368

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 28 Mar 2018

The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to disclose the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a), 24(1), 26(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the MOD was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 24(1).
FOI 24: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50664587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.617631

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 9 Jul 2018

The complainant requested details about the Ministry of Defence’s criteria for designating force deployments as ‘combat’ or ‘non-combat.’ The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Defence (‘the MoD’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the MoD to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50754380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.621346

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 19 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the service record of a named person and whether they were still alive in 1948. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed they held the service record of the named person but stated that they were unable to disclose the requested information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has correctly applied the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50695574

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.602318

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 25 Jul 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence for the terms of reference for Operation HELVETIC . The MOD identified two documents containing relevant information and disclosed a small portion of information. However, it argued that the remaining withheld information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. In addition, the MOD argued that some of the withheld information was also exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) (security bodies) or section 24(1) (national security). The Commissioner has concluded that part of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of this case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, in relation to the remainder of the withheld information the Commissioner is not persuaded that this is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b)
FOI 26: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50714296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.621345

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 21 Feb 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) asking it to confirm whether, as per press reports, SAS troops and other military personnel were deployed undercover on the UK’s streets. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 26(3) (defence). The Commissioner is satisfied that the MOD is entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50706690

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.617500

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 29 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to ‘lessons learned’ within specific areas of the Ministry of Defence (‘the MOD’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests. The MOD has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50692972

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.617393

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 16 Mar 2017

The complainant requested information on specific radar replay recordings in respect of military flights in the proximity of his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence has appropriately refused the request in reliance of the FOIA exemptions at section 43(2) – Commercial interests and section 40(2) – Personal data. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 43: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50627910

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.583775

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 27 May 2010

The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner which related to his investigation into case FS50165372. The Commissioner confirmed that he held the relevant information however refused to provide it on the grounds it was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, by virtue of section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. This Decision Notice upholds the Commissioner’s use of section 44(1)(a). However, it finds the Commissioner in breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act for failing to respond within the statutory time limit. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0108 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50252539

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.531449

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2007

The complainant requested copies of all documentation sent by an individual in relation to a complaint made about the complainant to the Information Commissioner under the terms of the Data Protection Act (the ‘DPA’). The complainant further requested an explanation regarding payments made by the Commissioner to individuals relating to the same DPA complaint. The Commissioner refused the first part of the request on the basis that section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act applied as section 59 of the DPA provided statutory prohibition on disclosure. The complainant received an answer to the second part of the request. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and concludes that the exemption has been applied correctly.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50126668

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.532886

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2006

The complainant requested the residential addresses of all the Information Commissioner’s current salaried staff. The request was refused on the basis that the information constitutes personal data and was provided to the Commissioner by his employees in confidence. Sections 40 and 41 respectively are therefore being relied upon. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and agrees that the exemptions have been applied correctly.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50128761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.533585

Surrey Police (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2013

ICO The complainants requested information about the cost of a specific police operation. Regarding the information that was held, Surrey Police said that it could not be provided without exceeding the costs limit under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner considers that section 12 of FOIA was applied correctly in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50473156

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 12(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.528400

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Mar 2008

The complainant requested information relating to the payments of his late Uncle’s pensions. The public authority provided some information but withheld some under section 40 and stated that the remaining information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information withheld under section 40 as it concluded this exemption was not applicable. The Commissioner’s investigation found that the remaining information was not held. However, the Commissioner has found the public authority were in breach of section 10 and 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.532584

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)): ICO 22 May 2017

The complainant has requested biographical information relating to case examiners. The General Medical Council (GMC) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50656558

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.593675

Wise v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 16 Mar 2011

FTTGRC ‘This appeal concerns a request made by the Appellant to the Lancashire Police Authority (‘LPA’) on 31 August 2008 for documentation concerning the LPA’s decision not to include in its newsletter ‘Dialogue’ an article on the Intelligence and Anti-Corruption Team. There had previously been a published intention to include such an article and the Appellant sought information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) about why the decision not to do so had been taken.’

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0173 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434830

Mclean, Chief Executive of Argyll Group Plc and Caledonian MacBrayne Limited: SIC 22 Nov 2005

Refusal to provide a copy of the general arrangement plans of the MV Bute
Request for plans of a ferry currently in service – health and safety – section 39 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – whether release would prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person – section 33 of FOISA – consideration of the public interest

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 055 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434786

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 21 Nov 2005

Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 049 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 15-Aug-2006
Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information, Planning

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434784

Gilchrist v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 21 Jun 2005

Refusal to release procedures for student discounts on Council Tax, the name and telephone number of the office which handles student discounts on Council Tax and the length of time it would take to adjust Council Tax payments to take account of a student

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 002 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434731

Lochhead MSP and Scottish Executive: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Discussions on impact of EU Constitution – Mr Lochhead requested from the Scottish Executive (the Executive) copies of all correspondence regarding discussions between the Executive and the UK Government regarding the EU Constitution and its potential impact in Scotland.
The Executive refused Mr Lochhead’s request, initially citing 9 exemptions. Following Mr Lochhead’s application to the Commissioner, the Executive also informed the Commissioner that it believed it was entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of FOISA (Excessive cost of compliance).
The Commissioner found that the Executive acted in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA in refusing to respond to Mr Lochhead’s information request, in that section 12(1) of FOISA constituted appropriate grounds for refusal in the circumstances of the case.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 204 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434702

Carberry and Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Postcode-based information about the location of registered sex offenders – Request for information about the location of registered sex offenders based on the first four characters of a postcode and their housing tenure – some information not held (section 17) – section 12(1) excessive cost of compliance

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 206 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434701

Blane and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Information relating to work related sick leave in Scottish Borders Council – failure to respond to the request in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – whether the information requested is held

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 207 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434705

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 15 Aug 2006

Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 153 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 38(1)(b)

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 21-Nov-2005
Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434660