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 >> Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice) [2009] UKICO FS50153447 (12 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2009/FS50153447.html Cite as: [2009] UKICO FS50153447 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the senior investigating officer-™s report relating to an investigation into alleged abuse of the honours system that took place following allegations made in two newspaper articles published in April 1997. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 30(1)(a)(i) (information held for the purposes of investigations), 30(2) (information obtained from confidential sources), 38(1)(a) and (b) (endangerment to health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 30(1)(a)(i) applied to all of the report. He has concluded that the public interest in relation to the majority of the information favours maintaining the exemption. This conclusion having been reached, it has not been necessary to go on to consider the other exemptions cited by the public authority in relation to these parts of the report. However for a limited amount of the report he has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He has further found that the other exemptions cited by the public authority are not engaged in relation to that part of the information and therefore the public authority is required to disclose it. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority breached the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(3)(b) through its handling of the request. He also identified a new request that the complainant made at the internal review stage that the public authority did not respond to. In failing to respond to that request the public authority breached section 10(1) of the Act and he has ordered it to respond to that request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld
