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 >> General Medical Council (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50268922 (01 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2010/FS50268922.html Cite as: [2010] UKICO FS50268922 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant requested all the exhibits considered at Dr David Southall-™s Fitness to Practise Hearings. The public authority confirmed that it held such information and provided some information. It withheld the remainder by virtue of section 40(2) [third party personal data] and section 41(1) [confidentiality]. The complainant referred the case to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered the case carefully and, during the course of his investigation, the Court of Appeal overturned the original decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel as the reasons provided were inadequate. The public authority explained that a new Fitness to Practise panel would be likely to be required and it would need to consider the same exhibits. It therefore asked the Commissioner to consider the late application of section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(d) [prejudice to the exercise of its functions in ascertaining a person-™s fitness or competence-¦in relation to any profession]. The Commissioner has allowed the late application of the exemption and upholds the application of section 31(1)(g) in this case as he has been satisfied that there would be prejudice to that purpose and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He has found procedural breaches of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b) as the public authority issued its response late and failed to cite an exemption that it would later rely on at the time of its internal review. However, he requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld
