DPA/FOIA overlap

The overlap between FOIA and the DPA gives rise to  a number of difficult problems.

In a paper just posted on 11KBW’s website (and originally delivered to a JUSTICE/Sweet & Maxwell conference in December 2008) I discuss some of these issues.  In particular, I deal with the practical problems that arise when an individual makes a request for information to a public authority and some (but not all) of the information constitutes his own personal data.  Because the request falls under both the DPA and FOIA, the Information Commissioner will need to deal with any complaint under two different legal regimes; if the requester subsequently appeals, the Information Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to deal with all the issues raised by the request.  The article suggests that the present position is unsatisfactory and discusses options for reform.

Recent ICO decisions on Freedom of Information

In Decision Notice FS50139215, issued this week, the Commissioner has ordered the Met Police to disclose particular CCTV footage showing the movements of the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July 2005.

The Met had argued that the footage was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(a) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) and 38(1)(a) (health and safety) of FOIA.

The Commissioner accepted that the exemption in section 30(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of FOIA was engaged. However, he rejected arguments that such disclosure would render meaningful police investigation impossible and that, pending any trial, the CCTV footage should only be disclosed to the CPS, the Courts or other bodies involved in the investigative process.

The Commissioner’s comments on the public interest in full disclosure of any material relating to the 7/7 bombings are of particular interest. He noted, for example, that whilst there had already been widespread media coverage in relation to the bombings, “full disclosure in order to avoid any suspicion of ‘spin’ or ‘cover up’ will continue to be in the public interest regardless of the volume of related information that has previously been disclosed”. On similar lines, he observed that in circumstances in which the 7/7 attacks had been the subject of conspiracy theories, the fact that “disclosure would presumably support the official account of the time line and basic facts of the attacks and reduce any perceived lack of transparency about how this account was formed, along with removing any suspicion of ‘spin’ or ‘cover up’” was a valid public interest factor in favour of disclosure.

The Commissioner rejected the Met’s claim that the exemption under section 38(1)(a) of FOIA (health and safety) was engaged at all, emphasising that the arguments advanced by the Met on this point had lacked detail in relation to the specific CCTV footage in question. He also concluded that, whilst not cited by the Met, the personal data exemption in section 40(2) of FOIA was engaged in respect of footage from which individuals other than the perpetrators of the attacks could be identified. The Met must redact this information, such as by pixellation, before the footage is disclosed.

In other Decision Notices issued this week, the Commissioner has held that:

  • Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester Universities and Kings College and University College, London must disclose information relating to primate research. A complainant had sought such information from a number of universities, including information as to the numbers and species of primates referred to in returns to the Home Office, and as to current research. The Commissioner held that the exemptions relied upon by the universities were not engaged (variously, sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA).

 

  • The Department of Health must disclose civil servants’ submissions to Ministers in relation to proposed variations to consultants’ contracts as part of its ‘modernising medical careers’ initiative. Whilst the exemption in section 35(1)(a) (policy) of FOIA was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh that in disclosure (FS50151464).

 

  • In contrast, the FCO was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held particular information as to identification of a voice heard in the video showing the beheading of Ken Bigley in Iraq in 2004. The FCO successfully relied upon sections 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to the security services) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA (FS50188323).

Reviewing the situation

Under FOIA, there is no statutory duty on public authorities to operate an internal review procedure relating to their handling of FOI requests.  There is however an incentive for them to do so – if a review procedure  is available but has not been exhausted then the Commissioner can decline to entertain a complaint from the requester under FOIA section 50. 

Section 45 of the Act enables the Secretary of State to issue a Code of Practice giving guidance to public authorities about how they should operate their functions under the Act.  The Commissioner can make a practice recommendation (under section 48) where a public authority’s practice appears not to comply with the Code.

The Code issued under section 45 in November 2004 states that authorities should operate a review procedure, with decisions being made within a reasonable time.  In February 2007 the Commissioner issued guidance that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request; in a small number of cases it might be reasonable to take longer, but in no case should the time taken exceed 40 days.

Today the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a press release about a Practice Recommendation addressed to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) dated 31st March 2009.   The Recommendation expresses concern both about the time taken by GMP to deal with internal reviews (over 150 working days in one case) and the apparent inaccuracy of some of the information provided to the ICO by GMP.  The Commissioner recommends that GMP should take steps to ensure its future compliance with the time limits in the ICO’s February 2007 guidance.   Paragraph 52 of the recommendation is significant, emphasising the ICO’s willingness to take formal action where there is continuing non-compliance with the Code. 

Incidentally, although the Practice Recommendation refers to the ICO’s February 2007 guidance, new guidance about internal reviews (dealing with both FOIA and EIR) was issued on 16th February 2009.  A useful summary of recent guidance issued by the ICO is available here, courtesy of the FOI blog maintained by the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

I am grateful to Andrew Smith (currently a pupil at 11KBW) for drawing the Practice Recommendation to my attention and helping to draft this post.

Links and resources

On the left hand side of this page you will see a list of links.  The first link is to a collection of information law resources on 11KBW’s main website.  There are conference papers and other materials written by members of chambers;  in particular there is an 80 page practical guide to the Environmental Information Regulations, written by Anya Proops.   In discussions of FOI, we find that the EIR tend to be unduly neglected;  Anya’s guide is a contribution to redressing the balance.

You will also find links to online resources maintained by a wide range of organisations and individuals:  Government departments, regulators (both in the UK and overseas), academic institutions, legal practitioners, campaigners and bloggers.   If you think that there is anything that we should add, please email me on Timothy.Pitt-Payne@11kbw.com .  Needless to say, we don’t take responsibility for the information or opinions posted on any of these external sites.

Many thanks to all those who have provided feedback and encouragement following our launch last week.  Particular thanks to Delia Venables for the speed with which she added us to her comprehensive listing of online legal resources in the UK and Ireland.

OGC publishes Gateway Reviews

Following a decision of the Information Tribunal issued on 19th February, the OGC has published two Gateway Reviews into the ID cards scheme.

The OGC announcement is here (with a link to the documents themselves). The Information Tribunal decision is here, on the Tribunal’s website. This case was previously the subject of a High Court appeal (from an earlier Tribunal decision).

Welcome to Panopticon

Welcome to “Panopticon”, a new blog about Information Law maintained by members of 11KBW’s Information Law Practice Group.  We opened our doors to the public on 18th March (you will see some earlier posts, below, created while the blog was still under development).

Information law is about the right to know, and the right to keep private – and it is also about the ever-shifting boundary between those rights.  It encompasses areas such as data protection, freedom of information, the protection of private information under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, breach of confidence, and the regulation of surveillance.  It is a fascinating and fast-moving area of the law, and is directly relevant to contemporary debates about open government, the “database state” and the “surveillance society”.  For a more detailed explanation, click on the link at the top of the page  (“What is Information Law?”).

A word about our title.  The Panopticon was Jeremy Bentham’s proposed new model prison, in which constant surveillance would be a tool for moral regeneration (see here for details and illustrations).  It has become an enduring metaphor in debates about the benefits and the dangers of systematic information-gathering.  The title has a secondary meaning:  this site is our own “Panopticon”, in which we try to keep an overview of developments in this area and to share them with our readers.

We hope you will find the blog interesting and informative.  You may also be interested to explore 11KBW’s main website:  this includes a wide range of conference papers and other materials about information law.

We don’t have a facility to post comments on individual posts, but please feel free to provide feedback by emailing Claire Halas:   Claire.Halas@11kbw.com