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 >> Home Office (Central government ) [2017] UKICO FS50674715 (15 June 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2017/FS50674715.html Cite as: [2017] UKICO FS50674715 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
15 June 2017, Central government
The complainant has requested the number of times Rule 40 was applied at each of the UK’s immigration removal centres in 2014 and 2015, and the number of times Rule 42 was applied at each of the UK’s immigration removal centres in 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that although it has complied with section 17(1) in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner has also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Home Office is required to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld
