FS50121838: 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_50121838.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50121838.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:27, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50121838
- Date: 23 June 2009
- Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
- Summary: The complainant made a three part request; for information about cases pre August 2004 where the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ was used against a charge of assault by a parent or guardian on a child, for similar cases post August 2004 and for details of what the complainant perceived to be a change in the policy of the public authority towards the reasonable chastisement defence. The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with the first part of the request in that it did not accurately confirm what information it held at the time of the refusal, but has since remedied this and disclosed all information it holds falling within the scope of the request. In regard to the second part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the public authority incorrectly cited section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and requires it to disclose the information falling within the scope of this part of the request. In connection with the third part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) is engaged in relation to all but one document which was already in the public domain at the time of the request, but that the public interest in maintenance of this exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The public authority is also required to disclose the information falling within the scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b) through its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0077 part allowed.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
