FS50130467: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50130467 | |dn_ref=FS50130467 | ||
|dn_date=20 | |dn_date=20 September 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Crown Prosecution Service | |dn_pa=Crown Prosecution Service | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information relating to evidence that he submitted to the CPS in connection with an alleged criminal offence. The CPS deemed the request as vexatious having had correspondence with the complainant for a number of years. Having investigated this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 14 by the public authority was correct. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information relating to evidence that he submitted to the CPS in connection with an alleged criminal offence. The CPS deemed the request as vexatious having had correspondence with the complainant for a number of years. Having investigated this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 14 by the public authority was correct. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs50130467_dn_redacted001.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs50130467_dn_redacted001.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |dnd_section=FOI 14 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:26, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50130467
- Date: 20 September 2006
- Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
- Summary: The complainant requested information relating to evidence that he submitted to the CPS in connection with an alleged criminal offence. The CPS deemed the request as vexatious having had correspondence with the complainant for a number of years. Having investigated this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 14 by the public authority was correct.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
