FAC0065282: 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=FAC0065282 | |dn_ref=FAC0065282 | ||
|dn_date=17 | |dn_date=17 May 2005 | ||
|dn_pa=Bridgnorth District Council | |dn_pa=Bridgnorth District Council | ||
|dn_summary=Complainant requested copy of a court case transcript involving former Council employees. Transcript obtained from Court and paid for by Council who stated that the information was exempt under section 32 (1) (c). Applicant argued that as the document was not created by a member of the administrative staff of the court, this exemption does not apply. Our view is that the information was taken from a record to which section 32 applies (the court tapes which were created by the court). If the authority only holds the information because it was obtained from a source to which section 32 applies, then the exemption will stand irrespective of the format into which the authority may later convert the information. However, the Council failed to provide details of its internal complaints procedure in its Refusal Notice and was therefore in breach of s.17. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal. | |dn_summary=Complainant requested copy of a court case transcript involving former Council employees. Transcript obtained from Court and paid for by Council who stated that the information was exempt under section 32 (1) (c). Applicant argued that as the document was not created by a member of the administrative staff of the court, this exemption does not apply. Our view is that the information was taken from a record to which section 32 applies (the court tapes which were created by the court). If the authority only holds the information because it was obtained from a source to which section 32 applies, then the exemption will stand irrespective of the format into which the authority may later convert the information. However, the Council failed to provide details of its internal complaints procedure in its Refusal Notice and was therefore in breach of s.17. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/65282 | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/65282 dn.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
Latest revision as of 22:20, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FAC0065282
- Date: 17 May 2005
- Public Authority: Bridgnorth District Council
- Summary: Complainant requested copy of a court case transcript involving former Council employees. Transcript obtained from Court and paid for by Council who stated that the information was exempt under section 32 (1) (c). Applicant argued that as the document was not created by a member of the administrative staff of the court, this exemption does not apply. Our view is that the information was taken from a record to which section 32 applies (the court tapes which were created by the court). If the authority only holds the information because it was obtained from a source to which section 32 applies, then the exemption will stand irrespective of the format into which the authority may later convert the information. However, the Council failed to provide details of its internal complaints procedure in its Refusal Notice and was therefore in breach of s.17. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: dn.pdf
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 32 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
