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 >> Olympic Delivery Authority (Decision Notice) [2009] UKICO FS50196750 (22 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2009/FS50196750.html Cite as: [2009] UKICO FS50196750 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant asked the Olympic Delivery Authority (-the ODA-) for copies of internal audit reports. The relevant reports were entitled -Report on General IT Controls- and -Olympic Security Governance and Strategy Review-. The ODA applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold both reports. During the Commissioner-s investigation, the ODA decided to disclose a redacted version of the IT report because some of the issues were no longer -live- by the time of the Commissioner-s investigation. The ODA also sought late reliance on section 24(1) and 38(1)(a) and (b) in relation to the security report and section 40(2) in relation to names in both reports. The Commissioner accepted that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) was engaged by the IT report but found that the public interest favoured disclosure of all of the information. The Commissioner also accepted that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) was engaged in respect of all the information in the security report. He agreed that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption in respect of all the information apart from the contents page and part of the executive summary. Regarding the information that could not be withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) from the security report and to which the ODA had applied the exemptions under section 24(1) and 38(1)(a) and (b), the Commissioner found that these exemptions had been incorrectly claimed. Regarding information from the IT report that was not exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and to which the ODA had applied the exemption under section 40(2), the Commissioner found that this exemption had been incorrectly claimed. The Commissioner found breaches of section 10(1), 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld
