FS50178276: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50178276 .pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50178276 .pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 23 | |dnd_section=FOI 23 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50178276
- Date: 10 December 2009
- Public Authority: Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
- Summary: The complainant requested any information held by the public authority as to how a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into targets in London had, as disclosed in a statement made by the President of the United States, been averted as a result of information gathered by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The public authority refused to confirm or deny (NCND) whether it held information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 27(4)(b) (confidential information obtained from a state other than the UK, an international organisation or an international court), 31(3) (prejudice to law enforcement) and 38(2) (endangerment to health and safety). The Commissioner concludes that none of the exemptions cited by the public authority are engaged for NCND purposes. The public authority is required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial of whether information falling within the scope of the request is held. Any information that is held should either be disclosed to the complainant or the public authority should issue a refusal notice valid for the purposes of section 17(1). The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the requirements of sections 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(a) through its handling of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: .pdf
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 23 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 24 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
