Information Access Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Paul Grimshaw
[FOI #10848 email]
19 February 2010
Dear Mr Grimshaw
Freedom of Information request (our ref: CR 11772 ) – Internal Review
I am writing further to my e-mail of 5 October 2009, about your request for an
internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request
about the Wikileaks website. I apologise for the delay in providing a
substantive reply. Unfortunately your internal review request was overlooked
when it was initially received, and since I first wrote to you this matter has
taken longer to resolve than I hoped would be the case.
However I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant
papers, and have consulted the official who provided the original response. I
have considered whether the correct procedures were followed and assessed
the basis on which you were told that no information is held. I confirm that I
was not involved in the initial handling of your request.
My findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that the
original response was incorrect, in that it informed you that the Home Office
held no relevant information. A small amount of information is held and was
unfortunately not recovered during the handling of your initial request. This
information is not exempt and therefore it is also enclosed. You can find this
information at
Annex A to this letter.
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain
dissatisfied with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Diana Pottinger
Information Access Team
Annex A to letter – information to be supplied to applicant
1) Extract from daily morning media summary: 18 Apr PM - 21 Apr AM
Army’s intell capabilities are leaked onto internet last night – in highly-
damaging disclosure, handbook issued to UK cmmndrs in Iraq & Afghanistan
finds its way onto
wikileaks site
(NB - The daily media summary informs colleagues of current news stories in
the media. The wording of the above text is taken directly from the title of a
newspaper article and does not provide an indication of the Home Office’s
opinion. The remainder of this document is not relevant to the request as it is
not about Wikileaks).
2) Extract from ACPO Briefing Letter
BRIEFING NOTE
PUBLICATION OF MEMBERSHIP LIST OF BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY
The website
One of the websites that was displaying this list was Wikileaks. This website
has now been removed and at this time it is assumed that this has been as a
result of the actions of the webmaster.
(NB: we have only supplied you with the paragraph of this ACPO letter which
refers to Wikileaks. The remainder of the letter does not relate to Wikileaks in
any way and is not therefore relevant to your request.)
Internal Review Case Number 11722 – Paul Grimshaw re Wikileaks
Chronology
Original FOI request
23 April 2009
Al ocated to unit
23 April 2009 ( IMS )
Deadline
21 May 2009
IMS response
20 May 2009
Request for internal review
21 May 2009.
Subject of request
A request was received from Paul Grimshaw asking :
“Please supply all memos, documents and communications
referencing the websites known as wikileaks.org (and international
versions such as wikileaks.de).”
Response by IMS
As a request for information which might be held by a number of different
Home Office business units, it was allocated to the Information Management
Service (IMS) to answer. IMS responded to the applicant informing him that
the requested information was not held by the Home Office.
Mr Grimshaw’s request for an internal review
The following day – 21 May 2009 – Mr Grimshaw submitted a request for an
internal review saying:
“I believe that there must be communication regarding Wikileaks. The
wikileaks website has numerous reports and leaks from the Home Office,
especially in regards to privacy and ID cards. Either the original enquiry
missed the information requested or the entire Home Office is ignoring leaks.”
Unfortunately this review was overlooked upon receipt. This error was not
recognised until Mr Grimshaw chased up the reply to his original complaint,
hence the delay in its al ocation to a caseworker.
Procedural issues
An acknowledgement was sent when the original FoI request was received,
informing the applicant of the date by which he might expect a response, and
the response was sent within 20 working days. Therefore section 10(1) of the
Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, which states that responses must normally
be sent within 20 working days, was complied with.
Consideration of the response
IMS contacted local FOI practitioners in all parts of the Home Office (and its
executive agencies) and asked them to carry out a search for the requested
information. Al units considered most likely to hold information responded to
say that they did not hold anything relevant. A search of the Home Office
paper file database (RMSYS) was also carried out and it contains no
references to Wikileaks.
On receipt of the Internal review request an additional search was carried out.
This has led to the retrieval of two small pieces of information relevant to the
request:
• One reference in a Research Information and Communications Unit
media summary for 21st April 2009
• Information within a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers
after the publication of the membership list of the British National Party.
As the letter was held by Crime and Policing Group (CPG) all units in the
group carried out a further search and confirmed that no further information
had been overlooked. No such further information is held.
In this case the original search was not sufficiently thorough, and some
information was overlooked. As a result the response issued breached section
1(1)(a) of the FOI Act, which requires public authorities to state whether or not
they hold information relevant to a request, by inaccurately informing the
requester that no relevant material is held. Given that information is held, the
response provided was also not compliant with the duty in section 1(1)(b) of
the FOI Act to supply such information as is held (except where exemptions
apply).
I have therefore also considered whether this newly retrieved information can
be released, and as no exemptions apply to it I wil provide a copy to the
applicant.
Conclusions
• Section 1(1)(a) was not complied with – duty to say whether or not
information is held
• Section 1(1)(b) was not complied with – the duty to communicate
information that is held
• Section 10(1) was complied with – the response was sent on time.
