FS50222787: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50222787 | |dn_ref=FS50222787 | ||
|dn_date=28/07/2009 | |dn_date=28/07/2009 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:24, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50222787
- Date: 28/07/2009
- 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 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
