Tag Archives: FOI

August 14, 2013 · 8:00 am

Poor judgement?

Public authorities need to be cautious when disclosing performance figures of their staff under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. They need to be even more cautious when disclosing performance figures of third parties.

Imagine if your employer, or, worse, a third party, disclosed under FOI that, of all your peers, you made the most decisions in the exercise of your employment which were subsequently found to be wrong, and which had to be overturned. If in fact those figures turned out to be incorrect, you would probably rightly feel aggrieved, and perhaps question whether the failure of data quality was in fact a breach of your rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and of your employment rights.

That is what appears to have happened to certain judges in Scotland, according to a letter in The Scotsman today, from the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service. The letter points out that a previous (29 July) article in The Scotsman – “Meet the judge with the highest number of quashed convictions” (now no longer available, for obvious reasons) – was, although published in good faith, based on inaccurate information disclosed to the paper under FOI. The letter contains an apology to

Lord Carloway and Lord Hardie, who featured prominently in 
this article, for misrepresenting their position in relation to 
appeal decisions

because the erroneous disclosed statistics suggested they had had more judgments overturned on appeal than was actually the case.

Of course, the principle of judicial independence means that judges are, strictly, not employed. But as Carswell LCJ said

All judges, at whatever level, share certain common characteristics. They all must enjoy independence of decision without direction from any source, which the respondents quite rightly defended as an essential part of their work. They all need some organisation of their sittings, whether it be prescribed by the president of the industrial tribunals or the Court Service, or more loosely arranged in collegiate fashion between the judges of a particular court. They are all expected to work during defined times and periods, whether they be rigidly laid down or managed by the judges themselves with a greater degree of flexibility. They are not free agents to work as and when they choose, as are self-employed persons. Their office accordingly partakes of some of the characteristics of employment . .. [Perceval-Price v Department of Economic Development [2000] IRLR 380]

and the Supreme Court took this further in O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC 34 by saying “Indeed judicial office partakes of most of the characteristics of employment” (emphasis added).

Whatever their employment status, judges’ performance figures are clearly an important matter to them, and the Scottish Court Service has a duty to maintain accurate figures (particularly when disclosing them publicly). As Wodehouse said, “it has never been difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine”. I imagine that the office of Mr McQueen, the day after the first article, was not filled with sunshine.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, employment, FOISA, Freedom of Information, Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

August 8, 2013 · 6:00 pm

Small Council, Big Burden

“Parish Councils are the smallest unit in our system of elected government…In rural areas their jurisdiction typically extends to a single village or perhaps two or three, depending on size…Their budget generally runs to a few thousand pounds a year…They generally employ one part – time clerk to perform secretarial and administrative tasks… Their income derives from their precept – usually a small fraction of the Council tax. Most Parish Councils probably have little experience of FOIA requests for information.”  (EA/2013/0022)

When judgment was handed down earlier this year in the key case on vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Wikely J said

It may be helpful to consider the question of whether a request is truly vexatious by considering four broad issues or themes – (1) the burden (on the public authority and its staff); (2) the motive (of the requester); (3) the value or serious purpose (of the request) and (4) any harassment or distress (of and to staff).

The first of these comes into important focus in a recent decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT). In Harvey v ICO and Walberswick Parish Council (EA/2013/0022) the Council had received nearly five hundred FOIA requests (from various requesters) in a two-year period  (by way of contrast, county councils (which are hugely better-resourced) will perhaps have received about 2000-3000 over a similar period). It is not clear how many of these were made by the applicant, but the judgment says she was one of four residents who made the majority of them (which appear to stemmed from planning issues). At some point the Council had ill-advisedly purported to exclude requesters from making further requests. This in itself had only generated more requests. At one point all the parish councillors resigned as a result of the stress, tension and acrimony.

The request here was of a type often called a “meta-request” (a request about a previous request). It was for information about fifty previous requests refused on the grounds of cost. This meta-request was also refused, on the basis that, per section 14(1) of FOIA, it was vexatious. The FTT noted the dicta of Wikely J to the effect that

The purpose of section 14 must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA.

and applied this to the fact that the public authority in this case was a small parish council

Parish councils are not equipped to handle a torrent of FOIA requests and, we suppose, very rarely do so. If WPC was failing to handle such matters efficiently, to bombard it with an unending further stream of requests and demands seems an odd way of helping it to improve its service […] the grossly excessive burden placed upon the resources of WPC by the flood of requests, of which this was one, is the decisive consideration in any assessment as to whether it was vexatious.

A hero emerges from the judgment (no doubt the four requesters do not see her in this light): Mrs Gomm, the parish clerk. Before she arrived “FOIA issues –and probably other council functions – were not efficiently handled” but, in far exceeding her hours and “left at one stage to her own devices and with no authorised source of income for her services” she wrote “admirably clear and courteous responses, which accurately addressed the issues of law involved”, in the face of “relentlessly agressive” correspondence.

(I wonder if Mrs Gomm might have been behind the rather odd outcome to the events, whereby the parties agreed the pragmatic step of disclosing the information just before the appeal hearing (this was not, said the FTT, an acknowledgment that the request had not been vexatious).)

The judgment shows that – although all public authorities have the same obligations under FOIA-  the smaller they are, the greater the burden, and that this can come into play on an analysis of whether a request has been vexatious. The judge ends with an odd but memorably alliterative observation:

Remorseless repetition of regressive requests is not a sensible way to improve performance

Leave a comment

Filed under Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, vexatiousness

Tagged as

August 8, 2013 · 4:00 pm

The loophole to avoid enforcement?

Cabinet Office, FOI, Financial Times, Christopher Graham, blah blah blah

To recap. The Financial Times recently ran a resounding editorial on FOI, the ICO and the Cabinet Office, lauding the first, criticising the second’s lack of enforcement against the first, and lambasting the third. The Information Commissioner himself, Christopher Graham, replied in rather hurt tones, defending his office. Both Paul Gibbons (FOIMan) and Tim Turner have blogged on this. Here are my oar-sticking-in-coattail-hanging observations.

A key measure used by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to assess public authorities’ compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is the percentage of requests which are responded to within the statutory twenty day timescales. The guidance on this says

The ICO is may contact authorities [sic] if…(for those authorities which publish data on timeliness) – it appears that less than 85% of requests are receiving a response within the appropriate timescales.

Let’s ignore the obvious and worrying point that this is an encouragement not to publish such data. Fortunately for our purposes, government departments do commit to doing so, and quarterly reports covering the whole of central government are published. I can’t actually find them all on one page, so here are the reports for the last four quarters

April-June 2012
July-September 2012
October-December 2012
January-March 2013 

If you scroll through those datasets you’ll see that, over the last four quarters, the Cabinet Office has managed to respond to FOI requests within the statutory time limit or with a permitted extension in 92, 93, 95 and 86% of cases. Pretty good eh? This keeps them out of reach of the ICO radar. And, in fact, just prior to this, the Cabinet Office had been monitored by the ICO, and been required to sign an undertaking to improve, after appalling previous statistics had showed compliance in only 42 and 55% of cases in two quarters. After this monitoring period (the MoD were also monitored) the ICO announced

Both authorities have now improved their response times with over 85% of information requests being answered within the time limit of 20 working days and are working hard to deal with outstanding requests where responses have been unduly delayed. The ICO will continue to offer support and advice to help both Departments to ensure that outstanding requests are cleared as soon as possible.

However, what does “with a permitted extension” mean? It means, that in complex cases where a public authority needs more time to consider whether the public interest favours disclosure, it can disapply the twenty-working-day deadline and extend its time for compliance indefinitely, subject to reasonableness (although the ICO says it should be no more than an extra 20 days, he cannot enforce that). So let’s go back to those figures and see how the Cabinet Office would do if there wasn’t this potential loophole. If one simply asks “what percentage of requests were responded to within 20 working days?”, the figures are in fact 77, 77, 79 and 74%. Of course, without access to individual cases it is impossible to say whether these multiple extensions to consider public interest were made legitimately or not. However, the Cabinet Office appears to claim the extension much more than most other departments (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has similar figures, however).

I am sure the Cabinet Office will claim that the reason it does this is because it has to deal with more complex cases. Maybe that’s the case, but it would be nice if someone could look into it. And, of course, the ICO could. The guidance on how authorities are selected for monitoring doesn’t stop at the 85%-compliance measure. It also says they may contact authorities if 

our analysis of complaints received by the ICO suggests that we have received three or more complaints citing delays within a specific authority within a six month period [or if there is] Evidence of a possible problem in the media or other external sources.

To which I say, ICO, the evidence is clear (look at Tim’s analysis, look at Paul’s, even look again at Chris Cook’s). Compliance stats are not the only measure (and even then they may hide the true picture). The triggers for enforcement are there, but is there a will?

And finally.

3 Comments

Filed under Cabinet Office, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, transparency

Tagged as , ,

July 31, 2013 · 7:40 am

An error of judgment

A very brief post, on something in a High Court judgment which may merely be a slip.

On 6 June 2013 a renewed application to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was heard in the High Court. The applicant, Flynn, is seeking compensation for detriment suffered by reason of the making of a public interest disclosure (the “whistle-blowing claim”) and for arrears for holiday pay. The respondent, Warrior Square Recoveries Limited (“Warrior”) made an initially unsuccessful attempt to have the claims struck out. On appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to strike out the holiday arrears claim, but struck out the whistle-blowing claim because it had not been brought within the requisite three-month time-limit. Flynn now sought to reinstate the whistle blowing claim.

Lord Justice Rimer was not impressed by the arguments to reinstate, but, rather reluctantly, found one sufficiently compelling to justify permission

The only argument that appeared to me arguably to have some legs to it was that on 21 May 2010 the applicant made a subject access disclosure application to Warrior under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the purpose being the provision to him of information as to whether or not the defamation claim was being pursued. Warrior had 40 days to comply with the request, but it did not do so. It is said that the expiration of the 40 days marked another deliberate failure by Warrior to act, following which the tribunal proceedings were issued within three months.

With some hesitation, I regard this ground as sufficient to justify permission to appeal…

The perspicacious among you might have noticed something. Subject access, and the 40 day time for compliance, are terms not from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), but from section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). FOIA only applies to public authorities, of which Warrior is not one. If a public authority receives a request seeking subject access under FOIA it should apply the exemption at section 40(1) and “the public authority will need to deal with it in accordance with the DPA” (Information Commissioner guidance). An employer, such as Warrior, which is not a public authority, has no such obligations under FOIA. It probably should have still, on receipt of a letter purporting to be a FOIA request, have read it and recognised it as being, rather, a subject access request under DPA (under which it does have obligations to respond). But I’m not sure I would criticise it too much for seeing the words “Freedom of Information Act”, and thinking it didn’t need a response. I’m also not sure that the failure to respond to a non-existent obligation under an Act to which the company was not subject should have counted for the purposes of deciding when the time for lodging a claim started.

As I say, this may be a transcription error, or the judge might have mistakenly cited FOIA when he meant DPA, but the fact that this point was determinative of whether to allow permission to appeal means the error (whether it was an actual one, or just in the handed down judgment) is very odd.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, employment, Freedom of Information, Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

July 29, 2013 · 1:29 pm

An Unnecessary FOI Appeal?

South Lanarkshire Council have lost what seems to me to have been a rather unnecessary, and surely rather costly, FOI case in the Supreme Court. That said, the judgment is important reading.

It is well-established that, for disclosure of personal data to be lawful under Freedom of Information law (both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOI(S)A) it will normally be necessary to satisfy the test in the sixth condition of Schedule Two of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)

The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

Disclosure is, by section 1(1) of the DPA, an act of “processing”.

It is also well-established (indeed, one might almost say it is trite law), that “necessary” in that condition is to be construed in accordance with the relevant European authorities. As the High Court held, in the MPs’ expenses case

‘necessary’ within para 6 of Sched 2 to the DPA should reflect the meaning attributed to it by the European Court of Human Rights when justifying an interference with a recognised right, namely that there should be a pressing social need and that the interference was both proportionate as to means and fairly balanced as to ends. Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin)

For reasons which are not entirely clear to me (but I’m not a Scottish lawyer) (in fact, I’m neither Scottish, nor a lawyer) the Court of Session in Scotland said, when hearing an appeal from South Lanarkshire Council of a decision by the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner (OSIC) to order disclosure of information on how many of the total number of a certain post were placed at specific points in the pay scale, that it saw the force of a submission by counsel for the Council that

the word “necessary” should be accorded its ordinary and natural meaning, with the opening phrase being understood as imposing a distinct requirement

and that

but for the authority [of the MPs expenses case], we would have had little hesitation in giving effect to it

but they didn’t even need to reach a concluded view on this, because it was clear that, in this case, whatever construction was given to “necessary”

the Commissioner could only have concluded that necessity was made out. In particular, he held that the Requester’s own interest coincided with a widespread public interest in the matter of gender equality and that it was important to achieve transparency on the subject of Equal Pay. No better means existed to achieve that goal than by releasing the information in question

Apparently grabbing at that tiny bone thrown them by the Court of Session, the Council appealed to the Supreme Court. The hearing was three weeks ago, and judgment has been handed down today (which strikes me as rather quick) unanimously dismissing the Council’s appeal. At the time of the hearings The Herald reported that the Supreme Court had “slapped down” the Council

A cash-strapped Labour council has been scolded by one of the UK’s most senior judges for “dancing on the head of a pin” with “Alice In Wonderland” legal arguments, which have cost taxpayers thousands of pounds.

Anyone with any experience of litigation knows that it is a dangerous game to predict the outcome on the basis of the apparent approval or disapproval of your argument by the judge – often the strongest argument will be given the heaviest interrogation – but it does appear that, in this case, The Herald wasn’t taking too much of a gamble in anticipating the outcome. Lady Hale, giving the leading judgment, agreed with the Council that

the word “necessary” has to be considered in relation to the processing to which it relates. If that processing would involve an interference with the data subject’s right to respect for his private life, then [Rechnungshof v Ősterreichischer Rundfunk (Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01) [2003] 3 CMLR 265] is clear authority for the proposition that the requirements of article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights must be fulfilled

but in this instance, although disclosure of the information would be “processing” of “personal data” by the Council (as the Council itself could identify those to whom the data related), the requester (nor any other third party) would not be able to identify the data subjects. Accordingly

as the processing requested would not enable Mr Irvine or anyone else to discover the identity of the data subjects, it is quite difficult to see why there is any interference with their right to respect for their private lives

And Lady Hale disagreed with the Council on the construction of “necessary”

all that has to be asked is whether the requester is pursuing a legitimate interest in seeking the information…and whether he needs that information in order to pursue it. It is well established in community law that, at least in the context of justification rather than derogation, “necessary” means “reasonably” rather than absolutely or strictly necessary…necessity is well established in community law as part of the proportionality test. A measure which interferes with a right protected by community law must be the least restrictive for the achievement of a legitimate aim. Indeed, in ordinary language we would understand that a measure would not be necessary if the legitimate aim could be achieved by something less 

As the requester was clearly pursuing a legitimate interest, and this could only be met by disclosure under FOI(S)A the appeal had to fail, and the information falls to be disclosed. It is difficult to see how any other outcome, following the domestic and European authorities, could have ensued.

This does leave unanswered what the outcome would be if, for instance, no legitimate interest were advanced by a requester and/or the data subjects could be identified. In this instance, the OSIC had sought clarification of the requester’s purposes, in an investigation which the Supreme Court held was not in breach of the rules of natural justice, despite a failure to involve the Council in the correspondence. As a blogger activist the requester, Mr Irvine, could clearly point to a legitimate interest – a “serious, ongoing interest in equal pay matters”, but Lady Hale observed that

for example, if Mr Irvine had asked for the names and addresses of the employees concerned, not only would article 8 have clearly been engaged, but the Commissioner would have had to ask himself whether his legitimate interests could have been served by a lesser degree of disclosure

 In European Commission & United Kingdom v Bavarian Lager (Case C-28/08 P) the European Court of Justice found that the European Commission had not erred in refusing to disclose, under the EU Access Regulation, the identities of people attending a meeting, because the company requesting it had not been able to advance a legitimate interest in disclosure (see the excellent Panopticon post on this). FOI was traditionally said to be “applicant blind”, with a requester not needing to advance a purpose for asking for information, but, as these “personal data” cases (and others not relating to personal data – the “social watchdog” argument in the ongoing litigation involving Dominic Kennedy and the Charity Commission) show that motivation can be a determining point when it comes to disclosure under FOI.

2 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, FOISA, Freedom of Information, human rights, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

July 18, 2013 · 2:21 pm

FOI timescales decisive for public law claim

An FOI request is used to show when the clock for bringing a claim starts ticking

As I am neither Scottish, not a lawyer, I make a foray into Scottish law with a distinct lack of confidence. However, I notice an interesting* case in the Scottish Court of Session, where the dates relating to a request for information were crucial in deciding whether a claim could continue.

The pursuer (equivalent to the claimant in England and Wales) was Nationwide Gritting Services (NGS), and it is aggrieved at, as it claims, missing out on the opportunity in 2010 and 2011 to tender to supply de-icing salt to Transport Scotland. The preliminary matter before Lord Woolman was whether the claim for breach of the then-in-force Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (“the Regulations”) was time-barred. The key issue, for the purposes of deciding when the time limits for making the claim began (applying the authority of the European Court of Justice in Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority), was to determine the date on which NGS knew or ought to have known of the alleged infringement.

The claim had to be brought within three months of the date when the grounds for bringing the proceedings first arose. NGS served the summons in the present action on 28 August 2012. Accordingly, the critical date is 28 May 2012. The Scottish Ministers contend that NGS had the grounds to bring proceedings prior to that date (¶5)

Although there had been media coverage of salt-procurement matters in 2010, and some contact between an agent of NGS and Transport Scotland in 2010, it was only when another customer stated that Transport Scotland had purchased de-icing salt that NGS decided to make enquiries. On 30 April 2012 it sent an email headed “Formal Request for Information on Procurement Process for Salt” to Transport Scotland. It is not clear whether it cited the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) but it appears that Transport Scotland properly treated it as a request under the same, because they replied on 30 May 2012 – the twentieth working day following receipt. Thus, contended NGS, 30 May was the date on which it had the requisite knowledge to bring a claim under the Regulations.

The judge agreed. Although NGS might have had “suspicions” in 2010 and 2011 that Transport Scotland had acquired salt, it had no “hard information”. When it received “hearsay evidence” from its customer it acted to enquire whether this was correct. The wording of its FOISA request (even though it had stated that NGS was “of the opinion” that proper process had not been followed) should not be taken to mean that it had “sufficient information to make an informed decision”. Only on 30 May 2012 had NGS’s suspicions “ripened into hard knowledge”.

Consequently, the claim can proceed:

as at 28 May 2012, NGS only suspected that an infringement has occurred. That suspicion was unsupported. Accordingly the grounds for bringing proceedings had not arisen by that date (¶30)

Of course, on one view this make perfect sense and is uncontroversial. People don’t normally make FOI requests unless they want to receive new information.

I don’t for a second claim the case is ground-breaking, but it is interesting for showing that the strict deadlines applying to FOI requests can potentially be useful for drawing a line in the sands of litigation.

(*Indulge me – I happen to find judicial analysis of salt procurement interesting.)

Leave a comment

Filed under FOISA, Freedom of Information

Tagged as

July 17, 2013 · 5:07 pm

The Fog of War (on Drugs)

A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Nottinghamshire police by a local newspaper resulted in the press headline

Police winning war on production of cannabis in county

The request was apparently for “the number of cannabis farms discovered” in the county, and the number of arrests in relation to production of the drug. Over a five year period the data showed that both were down, by 19% and 25% respectively. The paper reported that

Police say the figures prove a crackdown on cannabis production is having an impact

Do the figures prove that? I don’t think so. In fact, I think you could just as reasonably extrapolate that, for instance, police are actually “losing the war on drugs” and have chosen to expend fewer resources in discovering the farms, or, that producers have got a lot better at hiding them. The figures don’t “prove” these assertions either, but each seems to me to be as valid a conclusion as the one reported.

I read the article in light of an exchange on twitter about whether public authorities, when responding to FOI requests, were entitled to include a statement to be used in the event that the requester wished to publish an article.

Provided that the response to the FOI request itself is compliant with legal requirements I see no problem with this approach, which is really only an extension of the practice of providing explanatory comment to FOI disclosures.

What I would be critical of, though, is an unquestioning approach by journalists to such accompanying statements.

Leave a comment

Filed under Freedom of Information, journalism

Tagged as ,

July 12, 2013 · 10:16 am

The future of the ICO’s funding and functions

In February of this year the House of Commons Justice Committee took evidence from the Information Commissioner and his two deputies, and in March published a lengthy, sympathetic and wide-ranging report on The functions, powers and resources of the Information Commissioner. The Committee has now published the government response, which was in the form of a letter from Lord McNally, Minister of State for Justice. With the greatest of respect for the Ministry of Justice, the response seems to be little more than a deft kick into touch. Here are some examples.

Funding

The report raised various concerns about future funding for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Firstly, it noted that the ICO cannot use the money it receives for FOI work in the form of grant-in-aid for Data Protection work, and not can it use the funding it receives for Data Protection work from notification fees for FOI work. The report recommended that

The Government should consider relaxing the governing rules around virement and overheads

Lord McNally’s response says

…my officials have been working with the ICO to explore the potential for greater flexibility in the way the ICO apportions shared costs between the Freedom of Information (FOI) and Data Protection (DP) funding streams, in line with the Committee’s recommendation

Which adds little, if any, new information.

The report also noted that, if the European draft General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is passed in its current form, the ICO’s main funding for Data Protection work – notification fees – will be removed. It recommended

The Government needs to find a way of retaining a feebased self-financing system for the data protection work of the Information Commissioner, if necessary by negotiating an option for the UK to retain the notification fee or introduce an alternative fee. If the Government fails to achieve this, the unappealing consequence will be that funding of the ICO’s data protection work will have to come from the taxpayer.

To which Lord McNally replied

The work we intend to undertake in partnership with the ICO will include drawing upon research commissioned by the ICO into future funding options, and analysis they have done into the effectiveness of the tiered notification fee system which has been in place since 2009. I would like to reassure the Committee that the Government is committed to ensuring that the Information Commissioner is appropriately resourced.

Er, OK, but does that really say anything at all?

Independence of ICO

The Committee had linked the issue of adequacy of resources to the ICO’s relationship with the executive. If the regulator is reliant on government grant, can it be truly sufficiently independent? Their recommendation was

With the potential removal of the notification fee through the EU Regulation, we reiterate our recommendation that the Information Commissioner should become directly responsible to, and funded by, Parliament
Previously, during a Westminster Hall debate in January, justice minister Helen Grant had been clear that the government did not think this was appropriate. Lord McNally though was – again – equivocal
Whilst there are currently no plans for the Information Commissioner to be a Parliamentary body or to be funded by Parliament, the work we are taking forward on the ICO’s long-term funding and operating model will consider the range of recommendations that have been made by your Committee and others, including Lord Justice Leveson in relation to the future powers, governance and accountability arrangements of the ICO. I look forward to updating the Committee in due course.
Custodial data protection offences
On the subject of whether, finally, custodial sanctions for section 55 data protection offences should be commenced (see Pounder et al, passim), the Committee was clear
We call on the Government to adopt our previous recommendation, as well as that of the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill and the Leveson Inquiry, and commence sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to allow for custodial sentences for breach of section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
On this at least Lord McNally had a small piece of actual news. The government is to consult on Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals on data protection arising from his inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press
It is…the Government’s view that the recommendations require careful consideration by a wide audience. We therefore intend to conduct a public consultation on the full range of data protection proposals, including on whether to make an Order introducing custodial sentences under section 77 CJIA (a statutory requirement), which will seek views on their impact and how they might be approached.
Compulsory data protection audits
Finally, the Committee had noted the reluctance of some public sector organisations to submit to the offer of a data protection audit by the ICO. They found it “shocking” that this should be the case (sensitive souls eh?) and recommended that the power of compulsory audit should be extended (it currently applies to government departments)
We recommend the Secretary of State bring forward an order under section 41 A of the Data Protection Act to meet the recommendation of the Information Commissioner that his power to serve Assessment Notices be extended to NHS Trusts and local councils.
Lord McNally confirmed that consultation was already under way regarding the extension of this ICO audit power to compel NHS bodies to submit, but he was – you’ve guessed it – equivocal on whether local government would be similarly compelled
There are currently no plans to extend the Information Commissioner’s powers of compulsory audit to local government but the Department for Communities and Local Government are taking a partnership approach to improving local government’s compliance with data protection principles.
I can’t help seeing Lord McNally’s response as little more than a polite nod to the Justice Committee. It promises very little (other than a consultation on Leveson’s data protection proposals, which, given the continuing wrangles over the GDPR, I can’t see achieving much quickly) and delivers nothing immediate. However, the ICO tweeted this morning that it welcomed the response regarding funding and powers, so maybe the future of the independent regulator of transparency and privacy is being decided behind closed doors.

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, Europe, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, transparency, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

July 9, 2013 · 5:15 pm

Who’s to blame for the Ministerial Veto?

The people to blame for our not being able to see Prince Charles’ lobbying correspondence with the government are not the judges – it’s the people who passed the FOI Act.

So, perhaps to no one’s great surprise, the judicial review application by the Guardian’s Rob Evans of the Attorney General’s ministerial veto has failed. As three of 11KBW’s array of brilliant information law advocates were instructed in the proceedings, I am sure we will see a Panopticon blog post shortly, and I wouldn’t try to compete with what will be the usual clear and percipient legal analysis (for which, also, see this excellent post from Mark Elliott). However, I wanted to address what I see as a potential misapprehension that this was an expression by the High Court that it agreed that the Attorney General was correct to issue a certificate vetoing disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and government departments. While the natural outcome of the court’s judgment is that the correspondence will not be disclosed, what was actually to be decided, and ultimately was decided in the Attorney General’s favour, was whether the exercise of his powers was lawful.

Under section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner (IC) (or later remade by a tribunal) ceases to have effect if an “accountable person” (effectively, either a Cabinet Minister or the government’s senior law officer) issues a certificate stating that he has “on reasonable grounds” decided that there was in fact no prior failure by the government department in question to comply with a request for information under FOIA. It is a power of executive override of a decision made by the statutory regulator (the IC). Its place in the statutory, and constitutional, scheme is what people should be objecting to, particularly in light of what the court in this case found.

The case dates back to the earliest days of the commencement of FOIA. Evans had requested correspondence between Prince Charles and various government departments, but those departments had refused to disclose. In a detailed and complex analysis the Upper Tribunal (the case having been transferred from the First-tier Tribunal) last September decided that, although the FOIA exemption (at section 37) relating to communications with the Royal Household was engaged, the public interest fell in favour of disclosure of the information (two points of note: first, the section 37 exemption, which was at the time of the request a qualified one, subject to the application of the public interest, has since been amended to make it absolute; second, there were other exemptions engaged, but the section 37 was the focal one). 

There was potentially further right of appeal, to the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. So why did the government not follow this route? The Campaign for Freedom of Information have issued a press release in which their Director Maurice Frankel says “Ministers should have to appeal against decisions they dislike and not be able simply to overturn them”. I agree (of course) but the reason the government departments did not appeal in this case is because any appeal would have had to have been on a point of law – the more senior courts could not have substituted different findings of fact, or decided whether an exercise of discretion should have been exercised differently. In short, I suspect the government did not appeal because they knew they would have been unsuccessful (or rather, their lawyers would presumably have advised, as lawyers do, that the chances of success were low).

Davis LJ, giving the leading judgment in the High Court, identified that

The underlying submission on behalf of the claimant is, in effect, that the accountable person is not entitled simply to prefer his own view to that of the tribunal

to which he countered

why not? It is inherent in the whole operation of s.53 that the accountable person will have formed his own opinion which departs from the previous decision (be it of Information Commissioner, tribunal or court) and may certify without recourse to an appeal. As it seems to me, therefore, disagreement with the prior decision…is precisely what s.53 contemplates, without any explicit or implicit requirement for the existence of fresh evidence or of irrationality etc. in the original decision which the certificate is designed to override. Of course the accountable person both must have and must articulate reasons for that view…[It] is for the accountable person in practice to justify the certification. But if he does so, and that justification comprises “reasonable grounds”, then the power under s.53(2) is validly exercised. Accordingly, the fact the certificate involves, in this case, in effect reasserting the arguments that had not prevailed before the Upper Tribunal does not of itself mean that it is thereby vitiated

 The power to issue a certificate exists under section 53(2), even if, as Lord Judge said, such a power “appears to be a constitutional aberration”. If it exists, it can be exercised, subject to it being done so lawfully. To admit of another interpretation, says David LJ, would be (taken with the claimant’s other arguments) to 

greatly [narrow] the ostensible ambit of s.53. As a matter of statutory interpretation I can see no justification for such a limitation, either on linguistic grounds or on purposive grounds

Parliament chose to enact s53, and any potential inherent constitutional imbalance or threat to the rule of law in its having done so is overcome by the availability of judicial review:

for the purposes of s.53 of FOIA, Parliament has provided the procedure by which this statutory provision is to be mediated. It is to be mediated, on challenge by way of judicial review, by the courts assessing whether the Secretary of State has certified “on reasonable grounds”. That involves no derogation from the fundamental principle of the rule of law: on the contrary, it is an affirmation of it.

For the same reasons, any challenge as to whether the exercise of the veto (as applied to environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004) offends the relevant sections of the originating EC Directive and the Aarhus Convention (specifically, those that deal with the need to have a “review procedure”) could also be met by reference to the availability of judicial review (although one wonders, along with the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, whether judicial review meets the requirement to be not “prohibitively expensive”).

And ultimately, and  relatively straighforwardly, it fell to the court to

consider whether the Attorney General has shown in the present case reasonable grounds for certifying as he did…[and] the Statement of Reasons appended to the certificate, once carefully read and analysed, does indeed demonstrate such “reasonable grounds”. The views and reasons expressed as to where the balance of public interest lies are proper and rational. They make sense. In fact, I have no difficulty in holding them to be “cogent”. Indeed – especially given that the Attorney General’s reasons and conclusions are in many respects to the like effect as those previously provided by the Information Commissioner – it will be recalled that the Upper Tribunal had itself, in paragraph 4 of its decision, acknowledged that there are “cogent arguments for nondisclosure”

So, if you want to criticise the fact that the Attorney General was allowed to veto disclosure of Prince Charles’ correspondence with the government, don’t criticise the judges, don’t even criticise (too much, at least) the Attorney General himself – rather, criticise Parliament which passed the law.

UPDATE: 25 July 2013

The Guardian reports that permission has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental Information Regulations, Europe, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, transparency, Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

June 13, 2013 · 2:04 pm

Savile and Dishonourable Information

The Cabinet Office is required by the Information Commissioner to disclose internal correspondence about the conferring of honours on Jimmy Savile. Despite there being strong public interest arguments in favour of non-disclosure, they are outweighed by those in favour of disclosure.

There is an odd phenomenon, when considering the application of qualified exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA),  that I like to think of as “the escalation of public interest factors”: if something is of great sensitivity, the corresponding public interest in disclosure is also great, with the result that the public interest in maintaining the exemption increases. This, is, of course, strictly, nonsense, but it is a phenomenon that public authorities can sometimes find themselves experiencing.

I note the phenomenon in the Cabinet Office’s handling of a recent request for disclosure of information relating to the conferring of honours on the benighted, and sadly still beknighted, Jimmy Savile. The requester sought

any correspondence [that] exists between either civil servants or ministers discussing the award either of an OBE in 1971 or a knighthood in 1996 [the knighthood was actually awarded in 1990] to Mr Savile, prior to either award being made

The information was, said the Cabinet Office, exempt from disclosure under sections 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and 36 (effective conduct of public affairs. They

…acknowledged that this was an exceptional case in light of the information that had come to light in 2012 concerning Jimmy Savile [but] precisely because this was an exceptional case…the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption

The Information Commissioner’s Office, in a well-argued (n.b. I don’t always criticise the ICO) decision notice, has rejected the Cabinet Office’s arguments. The relevant exemptions are engaged, says the ICO, and there is public interest in maintaining them. So, in relation to section 37, the ICO

accepts that disclosure of the information would, to some degree, undermine the confidentiality of the honours system. The Commissioner accepts that this presents some risk of creating a chilling effect for contributions to future discussions in relation to honours nominees

however

disclosure would enable the public to be better informed about the matters taken into account at times when the award of honours to Jimmy Savile was under consideration. In the Commissioner’s opinion disclosure of the withheld information that is the focus of this request would go a significant way to serving the public interest, the nature of which is unique to this particular case

The ICO

wishes to emphasise that in reaching this decision he does not dispute the argument that disclosure would to some degree undermine the confidentiality of the honours system, simply that the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure attract more weight

Similar factors obtain in relation to section 36. So, while ongoing inquiries into the scandal mean that officials involved need a safe space to discuss relevant issues

the Commissioner does not accept that the safe space…will be significantly encroached by disclosure of this particular information…This is because the information focuses on one, relatively narrow, issue, namely Jimmy Savile’s receipt of two honours. In contrast the terms of reference for the investigations are wide ranging and cover matters of a wholly different nature

and while

the Commissioner accepts that it can be argued that the effective conduct of public affairs could be materially affected if disclosure of information under FOIA undermined the confidentiality of the honours system…the significant weight that the Commissioner considers should be attributed to the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure [mean that] the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest…favours disclosing the withheld information

Finally, although the ICO agreed that names of junior officials involved in the discussion regarding the conferring of honours were exempt under the Data Protection Act 1998 provisions of FOIA, the same did not apply to more senior officials and others. Even though

the individuals would have had a reasonable – and indeed weighty – expectation that such information would not be made public…the Commissioner believes that the legitimate public interest is only met, or, perhaps more accurately, best met, by revealing not only the comments of the individuals but also revealing who made them so that the recorded deliberations about the awarding of the honours can be fully and accurately understood

When finely balanced decisions on matters of public interest result in a recommendation for public disclosure it is common for an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to follow. The Cabinet Office will have to consider now whether it wants to be seen to be trying to suppress information about the conferring on a serial sexual offender of an honour which the Prime Minister himself has questioned.

2 Comments

Filed under Cabinet Office, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner

Tagged as ,