FS50184282: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision"
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_50184282.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50184282.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld

Latest revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50184282
  • Date: 30 July 2009
  • Public Authority: Cabinet Office
  • Summary: The complainant requested information the Cabinet Office held about the decision to award Colin Bell with an MBE in the 2004 New Year’s Honours list. The Cabinet Office explained that although it held some information it considered all of it to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption contained at section 37(1)(b) of the Act (conferring of an honour by the Crown) and some of the information to also be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of the Act because disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. In correspondence with the Commissioner the Cabinet Office also confirmed that it believed that some of the information would be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(4) of the Act because Colin Bell would not be able to access some of the withheld information under his subject access rights under the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(b) of the Act and that the public interest favours withholding the information. The only exception to this is the short citation included which falls within the scope of the withheld information, but as this information is already in the public domain the Commissioner has not ordered the Cabinet Office to now disclose this. The Commissioner has however concluded that the Cabinet Office breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]