FS50222787: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision2" to "DNDecision" |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50222787
- Date: 28 July 2009
- Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission
- Summary: The complainant requested to know whether the IPCC had carried out an investigation into one officer and if so requested a copy of the IPCC investigation of the officer and another officer. The IPCC informed the complainant that it was not obliged to confirm or deny if the information is held by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act. Having investigated the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the IPCC correctly applied section 40(5) of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
