BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)) [2007] UKICO FS50116822 (27 September 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2007/FS50116822.html Cite as: [2007] UKICO FS50116822 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
27 September 2007, Health (NHS)
The complainant requested a copy of an internal Audit Report into allegations of financial irregularities made against the former Director of Research Governance of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”), together with any background material regarding these allegations. This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Trust refused to provide this information and initially cited the exemptions at section 30 and section 41 of the Act. During the course of the case the complainant confirmed to the Commissioner that he now only sought access to the Audit Report. The Trust subsequently informed the Commissioner that it was now relying upon section 40 and section 31 of the Act to withhold the information in question. After considering the Report in detail, the Commissioner concluded that it contained the personal data, as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), of both the former Director of Research Governance and of staff members who had given evidence to the writers of the Report, or who were involved in the events surrounding the allegations. After considering the case the Commissioner decided that in relation to the personal data of the former Director, the release of this information would not be in breach of the DPA. He also concluded that if the Report was released in a partially redacted format with the personal data of staff members, other than that of the former Director, anonymised, the release of this information would not be a breach of the DPA. Therefore he concluded that if the Report was anonymised in this fashion section 40(2) would not be engaged.The Commissioner also decided that section 31 did not prevent disclosure of this information. Finally the Commissioner decided that the public authority was in breach of section 17, as it failed to state in its refusal notice the exemptions it later sought to rely upon. Consequently, the complaint was partially upheld.
FOI 17: Upheld
