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 >> Merseyside Police (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50263699 (03 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2010/FS50263699.html Cite as: [2010] UKICO FS50263699 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant made two requests for information relating to a 1993 murder conviction that followed an investigation carried out by the public authority; first, a report produced by an officer of the public authority covering the earliest stages of its investigation and, secondly, a report compiled under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority covering the entirety of the investigation carried out by the public authority. The public authority initially refused the request on cost grounds and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance). Following internal review, the public authority cited the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation) and 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in response to the first request and section 44(1)(c) (contempt of court) in response to the second request. Following the involvement of the Commissioner the public authority disclosed some of the information falling within the scope of the request. In relation to the majority of the remainder of the information, the Commissioner has considered the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information), which the public authority did not cite in relation to the majority of the information, and concluded that this is engaged. In relation to a small part of the information falling within the scope of the second request, the Commissioner finds that section 40(2) is not engaged, but that the exemption provided by section 44(1)(c) does apply. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 17(1), 17(3)(b) and 17(5) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
