FS50087630: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50087630 | |dn_ref=FS50087630 | ||
|dn_date=30 | |dn_date=30 August 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | |dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant asked the public authority for information about specifications and costs for producing the ‘MadforArts’ project. The public authority provided some information but withheld other elements, citing the exemptions contained in sections 41, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). It subsequently dropped its reliance on section 41. The complainant questioned the application of the exemptions and also expressed doubts that the public authority had identified all of the information which fell within his request. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority identified further information, some of which it released. The Commissioner decided that some of the withheld information was exempt under section 40 but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the section 43 exemption did not apply because there was no prejudice associated with disclosure. The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which had been inappropriately withheld. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50087630.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs50087630.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:25, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50087630
- Date: 30 August 2007
- Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
- Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about specifications and costs for producing the ‘MadforArts’ project. The public authority provided some information but withheld other elements, citing the exemptions contained in sections 41, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). It subsequently dropped its reliance on section 41. The complainant questioned the application of the exemptions and also expressed doubts that the public authority had identified all of the information which fell within his request. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority identified further information, some of which it released. The Commissioner decided that some of the withheld information was exempt under section 40 but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the section 43 exemption did not apply because there was no prejudice associated with disclosure. The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which had been inappropriately withheld.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
