FS50104384: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV 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 | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50104384 | |dn_ref=FS50104384 | ||
|dn_date=22 | |dn_date=22 February 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Bridgend County Borough Council | |dn_pa=Bridgend County Borough Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to reports prepared by the environmental health officers of Bridgend County Borough Council in respect of John Tudor & Sons, a large scale meat supplier based in the Authority. The complainant indicated that the request was to cover such reports prepared during the three years preceding the request. The public authority initially refused the request by virtue of Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. However, in subsequent correspondence, with the complainant, the Authority sought to rely on sections 22, 30 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 stating that the information requested constituted evidence that would be utilised in a current criminal investigation as well as a pending public inquiry. The Commissioner sought evidence to evaluate the | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to reports prepared by the environmental health officers of Bridgend County Borough Council in respect of John Tudor & Sons, a large scale meat supplier based in the Authority. The complainant indicated that the request was to cover such reports prepared during the three years preceding the request. The public authority initially refused the request by virtue of Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. However, in subsequent correspondence, with the complainant, the Authority sought to rely on sections 22, 30 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 stating that the information requested constituted evidence that would be utilised in a current criminal investigation as well as a pending public inquiry. The Commissioner sought evidence to evaluate the Authority’s position and a member of his staff visited the public authority to examine the reports that were the subject of the original request. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 30. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50104384.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50104384.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 30 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:26, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50104384
- Date: 22 February 2007
- Public Authority: Bridgend County Borough Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to reports prepared by the environmental health officers of Bridgend County Borough Council in respect of John Tudor & Sons, a large scale meat supplier based in the Authority. The complainant indicated that the request was to cover such reports prepared during the three years preceding the request. The public authority initially refused the request by virtue of Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. However, in subsequent correspondence, with the complainant, the Authority sought to rely on sections 22, 30 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 stating that the information requested constituted evidence that would be utilised in a current criminal investigation as well as a pending public inquiry. The Commissioner sought evidence to evaluate the Authority’s position and a member of his staff visited the public authority to examine the reports that were the subject of the original request. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 30. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
