FS50178057: 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=FS50178057 | |dn_ref=FS50178057 | ||
|dn_date=15 | |dn_date=15 December 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | |dn_pa=Department for Culture, Media and Sport | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to request various categories of information relating to the Rooswijk shipwreck. The DCMS informed the complainant that the only information it held in relation to his request were the minutes of a meeting between officials from the Department, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and other parties, and extracts from the minutes of three meetings of the Advisory Council on Historic Wreck Sites. Much of this information was supplied to the complainant, but certain aspects of the information were withheld under the following exemptions under the Act: section 27(1)(a) (International relations) and section 36(2)(b) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The complainant appealed to the Commissioner about the withholding of this information. The Commissioner decided that some of the information withheld from the complainant was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act (personal information). In relation to the remaining information, he decided that the information withheld under section 27(1)(a) should be disclosed; and that of the information withheld under section 36(2)(b), the balance of the public interest test favours the maintenance of the exemption in respect of some of the information but the disclosure of the remainder. The Commissioner also found that there were some procedural breaches of the Act in the department’s handling of the complainant’s request. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50178057.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50178057.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 27 | |dnd_section=FOI 27 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:29, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50178057
- Date: 15 December 2008
- Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
- Summary: The complainant wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to request various categories of information relating to the Rooswijk shipwreck. The DCMS informed the complainant that the only information it held in relation to his request were the minutes of a meeting between officials from the Department, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and other parties, and extracts from the minutes of three meetings of the Advisory Council on Historic Wreck Sites. Much of this information was supplied to the complainant, but certain aspects of the information were withheld under the following exemptions under the Act: section 27(1)(a) (International relations) and section 36(2)(b) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The complainant appealed to the Commissioner about the withholding of this information. The Commissioner decided that some of the information withheld from the complainant was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act (personal information). In relation to the remaining information, he decided that the information withheld under section 27(1)(a) should be disclosed; and that of the information withheld under section 36(2)(b), the balance of the public interest test favours the maintenance of the exemption in respect of some of the information but the disclosure of the remainder. The Commissioner also found that there were some procedural breaches of the Act in the department’s handling of the complainant’s request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
