BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) [2014] UKICO FS50487115 (13 January 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2014/FS50487115.html Cite as: [2014] UKICO FS50487115 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary: The complainant requested 18 named documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regarding the Kiobel v Shell case heard by the US Supreme Court. The FCO withheld some of the documents in their entirety and disclosed digests of the remaining documents, albeit with material it considered to be exempt from disclosure redacted. In total, the FCO cited eight separate exemptions, namely: sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations); section 35(1)(a) (government policy); section 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs); section 40(2) (personal data); section 41(1) (information provided in confidence); section 42(1) (legal professional privilege); and section 43(2) (commercial interests). The complainant disputes the application of all the exemptions with the exception of section 40(2). The complainant also argued that the FCO should have provided a more specific indication as how the exemptions had been applied to each particular redaction. The Commissioner-™s decision is as follows: The exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), 27(2) and 42(1) are engaged and the public interest for each exemption favours upholding the exemption in question. The exemption at section 35(1)(a) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosing the information. The exemptions contained at sections 36(2), 41(1) and 43(2) are not engaged. The FCO breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to specify which exemption had been applied to each particular redaction. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a digest of document 4 without the information previously withheld on the basis of section 41(1) redacted. Provide the complainant with a digest of document 5 without the information previously withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 36(2) and 43(2) redacted. Provide the complainant with a digest of documents 10 and 11 without the information identified in the confidential annex redacted. (This confidential annex has been provided to the FCO only). Provide the complainant with a digest of document 16 with the only information redacted being that previously withheld on the basis of section 40(2).Provide the complainant with a digest of document 17 without the information previously withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 41(1) and 43(2) redacted. Provide the complainant with a copy of the information it disclosed to her on 19 July 2013 but this time annotating each redaction with the appropriate exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld
