Government ordered to release CBI lobbying documents

Friends of the Earth
Press release 1 May 08

The Government has been ordered to disclose previously secret records of lobbying by business group the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in a judgment published today (Thursday 1 May 2008), following a court case won by environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth.

In July 2005 Friends of the Earth requested details of lobbying meetings between the CBI and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that had taken place shortly after the last General Election [1]. The information included records of monthly meetings between Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson, and Director General of the CBI, Digby Jones. The information also includes the notes of a private away-day between senior CBI and DTI officials shortly after the last election.

In 2007 the Information Commissioner ordered the DTI to release most of the information requested by Friends of the Earth.

However, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) - where Lord Jones is now a Minister - appealed to the Information Tribunal to overturn that decision .
...
In a ruling published today (Thursday 1 May 2008), the Tribunal ruled that nearly all of the disputed information must be released because there is a strong public interest in understanding how lobbyists influence government. In this case it is not possible to distinguish whether the CBI was neutrally advising or influencing government so there is a clear case for releasing the information in the public interest [5]. The Tribunal found that the lack of a lobbying disclosure system as they have in the USA increased the need for transparency.
...
Phil Michaels, Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth, said: "We welcome this very important Information Tribunal decision.

"The Tribunal has recognised the strong public interest in members of the public having access to lobbying records and has recognised that transparency is particularly important where a group like the CBI has privileged access to Government to push their views.

"It is crucial that the Government now changes its outmoded culture of secrecy and recognises the importance of transparency in its dealings with lobby groups."

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Information Commissioner and Friends of the Earth (pdf)

MPs' expenses 'must be published'

BBC News
26 February 2008

The House of Commons has been ordered to provide a more detailed breakdown of MPs' expenses, following a three-year Freedom of Information battle.

Claims made under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) must be published in detail, the Information Tribunal ruled.

MPs can claim up to £23,000 a year each to cover the cost of staying away from home, including food and rent payments.

Commons resources boss Andrew Walker had argued publishing more details could intrude on MPs' private lives.

But the Tribunal ruled in favour of Freedom of Information campaign Heather Brooke and two journalists - and ordered the Commons to release the information within 28 days.

Tribunal orders disclosure of legal advice on public interest grounds

The Information Tribunal has ordered the disclosure of legal advice on public interest grounds for the first time. In Mersey Tunnel Users Association v Information Commissioner and Merseytravel (EA/2007/0052), the Tribunal found that advice by counsel to Merseytravel on the authority's powers under a Debt Administration Order, was subject to legal professional privilege but the public interest in maintaining the exemption was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

The Tribunal concluded:

Finally, we come to strike the balance in the particular circumstances of this case. Weighed in the round, and considering all the aspects discussed above, we are not persuaded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption is as weighty as in the other cases considered by the Tribunal; and in the opposing scales, the factors that favour disclosure are not just equally weighty, they are heavier. We find, listing just the more important factors, that considering the amounts of money involved and numbers of people affected, the passage of time, the absence of litigation, and crucially the lack of transparency in the authority’s actions and reasons, that the public interest in disclosing the information clearly outweighs the strong public interest in maintaining the exemption, which is all the stronger in this case because the opinion is still live. To quote Bellamy : “there is a strong element of public interest inbuilt into the privilege itself. At least equally strong countervailing considerations would need to be adduced to override that public interest”. In our judgement, the countervailing considerations adduced here are not equally strong; they are stronger. The opinion should be disclosed.

Read the Tribunal's decision.

BUAV decision
The Information Tribunal's decision in the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection's appeal (see post below) in relation to information about animal experimentation licences has now been published. In the decision, the Tribunal makes the following comments about delay by the Home Office and the Information Commissioner's Office:

This decision is being issued approximately three years after the date of the original request for information on which it is based...The Tribunal’s own decision to deal with the Appeal in two separate hearings has unfortunately contributed to the overall delay in reaching a conclusion but it is extremely unfortunate that the process for dealing with the request within the Home Office took eight weeks, the internal review of that refusal a further five months and the Information Commissioner’s investigation of the BUAV’s complaint a further twenty one months. Even allowing for the difficulties which the Information Commissioner’s office faced during the early months of the operation of the FOIA we have to record our disappointment that the first letter from the Information Commissioner to the Home Office notifying it that a complaint had been received was not sent until almost a year after the complaint had been submitted, and his detailed investigation did not begin until a further 4 months had expired.

Read the full decision.

Campaigners win key animal test FOI victory

Press release from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection:

The Government has been unlawfully withholding the details of the animal experiments it licenses in the UK, according to a key ruling from the Information Tribunal released today.

The case was brought by the BUAV after the Home Office refused to reveal basic information about animal experiment licences the organisation had applied for under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It attempted to argue that only the information which researchers applying for such licences chose to publish in summaries could be released.

The basic information asked for by the BUAV covers the purpose of the experiment, what is to be done to the animals, how the applicant intended to limit animal suffering and, crucially, how they proved it was essential they used animals rather than alternatives in their proposed experiments. The BUAV is not and has never been interested in information that identifies who is or was involved or where the research is or has taken place.

...

The organisation first asked for the licence information of five separate applications as a FOI test case soon after the Act came into force in January 2005. The Government had attempted to fudge its duty to release information so far by releasing ‘summaries’ of the licence information spun for public consumption. The tribunal agreed with the BUAV that such summaries are biased towards emphasising the positive aspects of the research and said they amounted to creating a “perception of a positive spin”. The BUAV argues this inevitably means any negative aspects such as animal suffering are downplayed.

‘This is not just a victory for the BUAV – this is a victory for the British public who expect to access honest and open information about the nature of animal experiments that take place in the UK. The Home Office’s repeated refusal to release basic non-confidential information about animal experiments just goes to further prove they are afraid of how the public will react if they are given real information about what actually happens to animals in UK laboratories, often at tax payers expense,’ said BUAV chief executive Michelle Thew.

The Home Office has been directed by the Tribunal to conduct a proper analysis of what is, and what is not confidential within the licence applications in question following the ruling.

Ends

'Release dossier', ministry told

Chris Ames
Tuesday 23 January 2008
New Statesman

The Information Tribunal has today ordered the Foreign Office to release the secret draft of the Iraq WMD dossier written by former top spin doctor.

The move casts doubt over the government’s claim that the document played no part in the production of the dossier.

However, the Tribunal has allowed a handwritten note to be redacted which the Foreign Office claimed would be damaging to international relations.

The FCO has said that it is studying the Tribunal decision and declined to name the authors of the handwritten comments.

The secret draft was written by John Williams, the FCO’s then director of communications, on 7 and 8 September 2002, just days after Tony Blair announced that the government would publish a dossier of intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein threatened the world with his weapons of mass destruction.

It preceded what the government would later claim to be the first draft, written by Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett on 10 September.

See also:

'No more draft dodging' by Chris Ames on The Guardian's commentisfree

Read the Tribunal's decision

Information Tribunal User Group

Notes from the first meeting of the Information Tribunal's User Group have been published. The Tribunal's website states:

"The aim of the group is to provide an opportunity for users of the Tribunal to discuss matters relating to its operations and processes of a non case specific nature with representatives of the Tribunal’s judiciary and administration, so as to identify better ways for the Tribunal to serve users."

Read the meeting notes here.

FOI and medical records of the deceased

In Mrs P Bluck v Information Commissioner and Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust, the Information Tribunal has ruled that the medical records of a deceased person are exempt under section 41 (breach of confidence) of the FOI Act.

"...we conclude that a duty of confidence is capable of surviving the death of the confider and that in the circumstances of this case it does survive."
"We have concluded, therefore, that the Trust would breach the duty of confidence owed to Karen Davies if it disclosed the Medical Records other than under the terms of the FOIA and that the breach would be actionable by the personal representatives of Karen Davies. Accordingly the Medical Records constitute exempt information for the purposes of FOIA section 41 and should not be disclosed to the Appellant."

The Tribunal also concluded that Article 8 of the European Convention on Europe Rights did not amount to a statutory prohibtion on disclosure under section 44 of the FOI Act.

Read the full decision (Pdf)

Disclosure "likely to improve quality of the deliberative process"

The Information Tribunal has upheld Friends of the Earth's appeal against the Information Commissioner and Export Credits Guarantee Department over a EIR request for inter-departmental documents relating to the Sakhalin oil and gas project. This is the first time that the Tribunal has determined that policy advice should be disclosed pre the decisional stage.

"While the Tribunal accepts that a final decision has yet to be made, the ECGD presented no evidence to the Tribunal or indeed to the Commissioner of how, and if so, to what extent ongoing interdepartmental or governmental deliberations regarding any prospective final decision would be harmed or might be harmed by disclosure of the 2003 inter-departmental responses in March 2005...The Tribunal is simply not willing to accept in the absence of such evidence that disclosure of the 2003 inter-departmental responses in March 2005 was likely to pose a threat to the candour of further deliberations or that the as at the time of the requestr was made in 2005, protective thinking time or space was required as a matter of overriding importance. There is simply no factual evidence to support the suggestion that time and space was required, let alone used, over the long period in question."

"The information requested in this case consists of a number of items of correspondence to ECGD from a number of the recipients [departments] of the notification. The Tribunal takes the view, having seen this information, that disclosure of at least one of the responses is highly unlikely to cause prejudice in terms of collective responsibility or candour when it comes to applying the public interest scales. On the contrary, the Tribunal feels most strongly that disclosure of the type of information in question in that particular exchange is, if anything, likely to improve the quality of the deliberative process." (Emphasis added)

Read the Tribunal's decision (Pdf)

Tribunal ruling on naming officials

The following note on a recent Information Tribunal ruling has been submitted by Jim Matthew.

The issue of release of personal information relating to members of staff (operating in a professional capacity) is one that has been exercising FOI professionals since the Act came into force in 2005. Although the Information Tribunal take pains to point out that their decision should not be seen as setting any precedents, in conjunction with previous decisions, Ministry of Defence v Information Commissioner and Rob Evans does help to clarify the situation somewhat (albeit that the typo in article 1 of the decision is particularly confusing (referring to “below” when the subsequent text makes it clear that it should be “above”)).

In general, 3 exemptions have been used to refuse to disclose the names of officials;

– Section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs)
– Section 38 (health and safety); and
– Section 40 (personal information).

Section 36 is the most contentious. The only justification for trying to use it is that any official would receive so many phone calls/e-mails/other correspondence as a result of being named that they could no longer perform the job they were being paid to do. Given how easy it is to screen e-mails, phone calls etc these days (or change them if required), not to mention any concept of public accountability for those performing duties which have a public impact, this has always seemed a bit tenuous when applied in general terms! However, it can be applied to junior staff members. Junior public servants might have a role to play in the creation of information but, even if they drafted a document, they are not expected to take responsibility for it (it would be written on instruction from, and reflecting the views of, a more senior official who would take responsibility), more often, they have probably only been copied in for information (or to ensure a document is correctly filed). There now seems to be a consensus (supported by this IT decision) in support of this view and section 36 can only be used to prevent the disclosure of names in very specific circumstances (in this particular instance, a simple staff directory, staff at or below B2 level – which equates roughly to Higher Executive Officer in the broader civil service – not in a public-facing role).

Section 38 has been commented on in some detail, including in this IT decision (but most clearly in decisions issued by the Scottish Information Commissioner), and it is now obvious that this can only be applied where there would be a real, genuine and demonstrable threat that the safety of staff members would be threatened if their name were made public (and, according to this particular IT decision, only if measures to protect the individuals concerned were not already in place).

Section 40 is perhaps the most interesting exemption. Both the Information Commissioner and the Tribunal accept that names, work phone numbers and work e-mail addresses of staff members are personal data under the Data Protection Act, and therefore covered by the exemption in section 40 of the FOI Act. However, this decision reinforces the Commissioner's guidance (Freedom of Information: access to information about public authorities' employees) which states that “professional” information should be handled differently from personal and private information (e.g. you should not get details of a staff member's disciplinary records which are personal data and clearly exempted under section 40, but details of that same staff member's involvement in determining policy etc), should be released.

This Tribunal decision therefore makes it even clearer that public authorities could only withhold staff names if;

- they are particularly junior (B2/HEO level in the latest IT decision), not immediately responsible for the requested information and their name is not already available elsewhere (or would be expected to be through their performing a public-facing duty); or

- there is a clear and demonstrable threat to that individual's health and safety if their name is made public.

Jim Matthew

21/07/07

Tribunal ruling on when information is "held"

The following note on a recent Information Tribunal ruling has been submitted by Jim Matthew.

A very interesting decision notice was issued by the Information Tribunal in the case of
Mr M L Johnson v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice (DCA as was) on 13 July 2007 .

Although the decision went largely unremarked and found in favour of the Information Commissioner and MoJ/DCA, it does set a very valuable precedent.

In 2005 MoJ came up with the concept of “meta-requests”. Meta-requests related to information which had only been created in dealing with a prior request (and not for any other reason) or information which could only be produced by manipulating existing raw data.

This meant that requests for a wide variety of information potentially would be classed as “meta-requests” and refused, including;

• requests for information relating to an applicant’s previous request (MoJ suggested relying on section 36, but any clearly unreasonable attempts to obtain information about withheld information might also be dealt with as vexatious);

• requests for statistical information, ordered or summarised in any way that was not already regularly produced by the public authority (e.g. ranked lists of consultants or contractors, summary information from the DVLA database (“how many Mark 1 Ford Escorts are still on the road?”) etc).

The Campaign for Freedom of Information were one of the first to suffer from the introduction of the “meta-request” concept, when in late 2005 they requested information relating to internal reviews under the FOI Act from a number of large public authorities. Whilst MoJ were arguing that this was “meta-information” and wasn't held (or at least needed to be manipulated before the request could be answered), many departments claimed that in order to monitor their compliance with the FOI Act, they did hold the information (and could produce it in an up-to-date form at the press of a few buttons). The situation ended up with a three-way split between those who simply ignored MoJ's advice (and provided the requested information), those who blindly followed it (and refused the information) and those who had argued and eventually secured a compromise (answering the request fully (if very late), but pointing out that there was no requirement to have done so under the FOI Act – thus neatly avoiding the fact that trying to argue with the Clearing House took them well over the 20 day response time, without any public interest test argument to support an extension!).

MoJ have yet to be tested on the “information about my previous request” issue, but, the Information Tribunal have now clarified what levels of data-manipulation should be conducted and on what grounds requests requiring such manipulation could be refused.

Mr Johnson asked MoJ for summary information relating to the numbers of cases allocated to each High Court Queen's Bench Master by year since 2001 and the number of cases which each Master had “struck out”. MoJ had genuine difficulty in producing this information, which could only be obtained by manually examining some 17,000 files (see the IT decision for full details), but chose to rely on the “information not held” line to refuse the request. In considering the appeal, the Information Tribunal made several important decisions:

1) The “information not held” line can only be employed if manipulation of the raw data to produce the requested information would require levels of skill and judgement (not relevant in this instance, since all that was required was a member of staff to look through the paper files (and know that there were 3 or 4 possible terms that might be used to replace “Strike Out”, but which meant the same thing)).

2) If skill and judgement are not required, then the “information not held” line can not be employed and another reason would need to be found for refusal. In this case, the Tribunal accepted that collating the requested information would have significantly exceeded the cost ceiling.

The importance of this decision cannot be underestimated. It has knocked over one of MoJ's artificial constructs for refusing to provide requested information, hopefully more (including MOJ’s “working assumptions”) will follow.

Jim Matthew
21/07/07

Ministry must reveal advice to Prescott over controversial tower

The Guardian 11 June 2007
Clare Dyer, legal editor

The Information Tribunal has ruled that civil servants' advice to ministers on major planning decisions should be disclosed to anyone who asks for it once the decision is taken.

The ruling, obtained by the former Tory environment secretary Lord Baker, was hailed yesterday by Friends of the Earth as a "significant breakthrough which means that members of the public will now have a much better understanding of why a controversial major planning decision has been made".

The Department for Communities and Local Government - which took over responsibility for planning from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister last year - has until June 29 to release the advice officials gave John Prescott when he was considering the application for the 50-storey residential Vauxhall Tower near Vauxhall Bridge overlooking the Thames in south London.

Read the full story.

Note: The Tribunal's decision is not yet on its website.

OGC appeals to High Court

Appeal over ruling on ID cards review - FT

"The Office of Government Commerce is to appeal to the High Court over a ruling that requires it to disclose a review of the controversial ID cards project."

"The OGC said yesterday...that it would appeal as "we do not agree with the tribunal's findings on where the public interest lies in relation to what information should be disclosed and what it is appropriate to withhold.

"So far, the gateway process has helped achieve over £2.5bn in value for money savings [by improving projects]. In the government's view, disclosure would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the process, as confidentiality is essential to it.""

See also:

Brown should back open government - FT Editorial

First Tribunal decision on policy formulation published

The Information Tribunal's decision on the Evening Standard's request for the minutes of senior management meetings at the DfES regarding the setting of school budgets in England, has been published. The Tribunal rejected the DfES's appeal and upheld the Information Commissioner's decision. The decision is significant as it's the first time the Tribunal has considered the s.35(1)(a) exemption for information relating to the formulation or development of government policy.

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0006
Decision Promulgated: 19th February 2007
Between: The Department for Education and Skills (Appellant) and Information Commissioner (Respondent) and Evening Standard (Additional Party)

The Tribunal said the following principles should guide decisions as to disclosure in cases such as this:

"(i) The central question in every case is the content of the particular information in question. Every decision is specific to the particular facts and circumstances under consideration. Whether there may be significant indirect and wider consequences from the particular disclosure must be considered case by case.

(ii) No information within s.35(1) is exempt from the duty of disclosure simply on account of its status, of its classification as minutes or advice to a minister nor of the seniority of those whose actions are recorded.

(iii) Subject to principle (iv), which we regard as fundamental, the purpose of confidentiality, where the exemption is to be maintained, is the protection from compromise or unjust public opprobrium of civil servants, not ministers. Despite impressive evidence against this view, we were unable to discern the unfairness in exposing an elected politician, after the event, to challenge for having rejected a possible policy option in favour of a policy which is alleged to have failed.

(iv) The timing of a request is of paramount importance to the decision. We fully accept the DFES argument, supported by a wealth of evidence, that disclosure of discussions of policy options, whilst policy is in the process of formulation, is highly unlikely to be in the public interest, unless, for example, it would expose wrongdoing within government. Ministers and officials are entitled to time and space, in some instances to considerable time and space, to hammer out policy by exploring safe and radical options alike, without the threat of lurid headlines depicting that which has been merely broached as agreed policy. We note that many of the most emphatic pronouncements on the need for confidentiality to which we were referred, are predicated on the risk of premature publicity. In this case it was a highly relevant factor in June 2003 but of little, if any, weight in January 2005.

(v) When the formulation or development of a particular policy is complete for the purposes of (iv) is a question of fact. However, s. 35(2) and to a lesser extent 35(4), clearly assume that a policy is formulated, announced and, in many cases, superseded in due course. We think that a parliamentary statement announcing the policy, of which there are examples in this case, will normally mark the end of the process of formulation. There may be some interval before development.. We do not imply by that that any public interest in maintaining the exemption disappears the moment that a minister rises to his or her feet in the House. We repeat – each case must be decided in the light of all the circumstances. As is plain however, we do not regard a “seamless web” approach to policy as a helpful guide to the question whether discussions on formulation are over.

(vi) If the information requested is not in the public domain, we do not regard publication of other information relating to the same topic for consultation, information or other purposes as a significant factor in a decision as to disclosure.

(vii) In judging the likely consequences of disclosure on officials` future conduct, we are entitled to expect of them the courage and independence that has been the hallmark of our civil servants since the Northcote - Trevelyan reforms. These are highly – educated and politically sophisticated public servants who well understand the importance of their impartial role as counsellors to ministers of conflicting convictions. The most senior officials are frequently identified before select committees, putting forward their department `s position, whether or not it is their own.

(viii) On the other hand, there may be good reason in some cases for withholding the names of more junior civil servants who would never expect their roles to be exposed to public gaze. These are questions to be decided on the particular facts, not by blanket policy.

(ix) Similarly, notwithstanding past experiences which were recounted to us with a proper anonymity, we are entitled to expect of our politicians, when they assume power in a government department, a substantial measure of political sophistication and, of course, fair – mindedness. To reject or remove a senior official because he or she is identified, thanks to FOIA or for any other reason, with a policy which has now lost favour, whether through a change of administration or simply of minister, would plainly betray a serious misunderstanding of the way the executive should work. It would, moreover, be wholly unjust. We should therefore proceed on the assumption that ministers will behave reasonably and fairly towards officials who promoted – or are believed to have promoted policies which the new incumbent rejects, policies which may not, anyway, reflect the official `s private view. By the same token, new ministers can expect from that official the same level of engagement with the policies which they now wish to pursue.

(x) Likewise, decisions should not assume the worst of the public. The answer to ill – informed criticism of the perceived views of civil servants is to inform and educate the critic, however hard that task may be, not to deny information, simply through fear that it may reflect adversely and unfairly on a particular official.

(xi) A blanket policy of refusing to disclose the names of civil servants wherever they appear in departmental records. cannot be justified because, in many cases disclosure will do no harm to anyone, even if it does little good. Quite apart from cases falling within (iv) above, there will plainly be instances where an individual has advanced particularly sensitive or controversial advice which for whatever reason should not be attributed. It might be appropriate to disclose the advice with the name redacted. Again, each decision will depend on the facts of the case. There must, however, be a specific reason for omitting the name of the official where the document is otherwise disclosable. That reason may not need to be utterly compelling where, as will often be the case, there is little or no public interest in learning the name."

Three further decisions have also been published on the Tribunal's website today:

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0045
Decision Promulgated: 28 February 2007
Between: Norman Baker MP (Appellant) and Information Commissioner (Respondent) and The Cabinet Office and National Council for Civil Liberties (Additional Parties)
Decision: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision notice dated 11 July 2006 and dismissed the appeal.

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0040
Decision Promulgated: 5 March 2007
Between: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant) and Information Commissioner (Respondent)
Decision: The Tribunal upheld the decision notice dated 5th June 2006 and dismissed the appeal.

Appeal Number: EA/2006/0017
Decision Promulgated: 6th March 2007
Between: Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Appellant) and Information Commissioner (Respondent) and The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police (Additional Party).
Decision: The Tribunal upheld the decision notice dated 22nd February 2006 and dismissed the appeal.

Tribunal decision update

Recently published decisions:

The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Norman Baker MP (16 January 2007)
- appeals dismissed

Mr M Shipton v Information Commissioner (11 January 2007)
-appeal dismissed

Mr J Perrins v Information Commissioner (9 January 2007)
-appeal dismissed

Guardian Newspapers and Heather Brooke v Information Commissioner (08 January 2007)
-Appeal allowed, new decisions subsitututed

Mr E Alcock v Information Commissioner (03 January 2007)
-Appeal dismissed

Mr R Reed v Information Commissioner (29 December 2006)
-The Tribunal has decided to substitute the following Decision Notice in place of the Decision Notice dated 3rd March 2006. No action is required following the substituted Decision Notice.

Latest Tribunal decision - S42

IT Decision published in 20th Dec:

Between Mr Trevor Kitchener (Appellant) and The Information Commissioner (Respondent) and Derby City Council (Additional Party)

The tribunal upholds the decision notice dated 13th June 2006 and dismisses the appeal. The appeal related to the S42 exemption (legal professional privilege)

Standing before the Information Tribunal

Heather Brooke at YRTK gives some interesting insight into the Information Tribunal Process from the perspective of a first time appellant (relating her appeal of the BBC’s refusal to release the minutes of meetings held in the wake of the Hutton report).

Latest Tribunal Decision

A decision worth noting for those working in public authorities about the importance of the S16 "Duty to assist & advise" and the S45 Code of Practice relating to S16, plus also to requestors about being clear and consistent about what you require throughout the process to appeal.

Dr C Lamb v Information Commissioner (16 November 2006)

Decision

The Tribunal finds that the Information Commissioner was wrong in law in issuing a Decision Notice upholding the Cabinet Office’s determination that the Cabinet Office did not hold any information of the type purportedly requested, on account of a failure on the part of the Information Commissioner to take into account properly or at all the admitted lack of clarity in the complainant’s original request.

The Tribunal substitutes a new Decision Notice requiring disclosure within 28 days of the date of this Decision in the following terms, namely:
On consideration of part (ii) of the complainant’s request of 31 March 2005 the Cabinet Office should have asked the complainant to particularise the said request in order to identify the precise information requested, asking in particular whether the said request sought information with regard to the author or authors of any legal advice or opinion provided to the Cabinet Office (other than by the Attorney General) irrespective of whether the said legal advice or opinion was provided by governmental or non-governmental source.

Information Tribunal case update

The list of upcoming FOI/EIRs/DPA cases at the Information Tribunal has been updated. Some interesting cases to note: The House of Commons case (MPs' expenses) will be heard on the 7th December). The first MP, Norman Baker to submit an appeal will have a "directions" hearing on the 13th Nov for his appeal about his request to the Cabinet Office.

Also - there is a Data Protection case - "Security Service v The Information Commissioner" listed (with no date) with a message "Appeal stayed until further order of the Tribunal." - does anyone know any details about this? (I'll contact the Tribunal and see what I can find out)

Latest Tribunal decision

Mr C M Hogan and Oxford City Council v Information Commissioner (17 October
2006)(PDF 785KB). The ICs decision notices were upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Oxford had applied S31 correctly in relation to Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) but not in relation to the Vehicle Registration Marks (VRMs).