Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:57:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Malicious Prosecution and Judgement obtained by malicious False Statements
From: fred robinson <
[FOI #4166 email]>
To: "Customer Services (CSHQ)" <
[email address]>
Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5
Time limits on carrying out internal reviews
following requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced
this guidance as part of a series of good practice guidance
designed to help understand and apply the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA). FOIA makes reference to complaints procedures at
section 45 (concerning the Code of Practice) and at section 50;
both relate to circumstances where an applicant wishes to complain
about the response of a public authority to a request for
information. The reference at section 50 concerns the discretion
that the Commissioner is allowed to exercise not to make a decision
in cases where a complainant has not exhausted a public authority’s
complaints procedure (also referred to as internal review). The
Commissioner considers it important that internal reviews are
completed as promptly as possible and so is introducing this
guidance setting out what he considers to be a reasonable timescale
for public authorities to undertake an internal review following a
request by an applicant. Section VI of the Section 45 Code of
Practice states that “each public authority should have a procedure
in place for dealing with complaints .... in relation to its
handling of requests for information.” This comprises desirable
practice for the purposes of FOIA, but it should be noted that
under the Environmental Information Regulations it is a requirement
for public authorities to consider representations made by
applicants for information. Consequently, most public authorities
under FOIA should already have the procedures in place to allow
them to perform an internal review. It is also important to note
that Refusal Notices must include either details of the public
authority’s complaints procedure or a statement that it does not
have one. This will assist the Commissioner in determining whether
or not an applicant, on making a complaint under section 50, has
exhausted the complaints procedure of the public authority.
The spirit of the Code is that internal reviews should be completed
as soon as possible. For example:
• a complaints procedure should be designed to allow prompt
determination of complaints (para 39) • target times should be set
for dealing with complaints (para 42).
• the code also recommends that the target times are reviewed
regularly and that each authority should publish them together with
information on its success in meeting those targets.
• there is also an implied recommendation, supported by guidance
issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, that the
complainant should be kept fully informed throughout the review
process. The Commissioner supports these recommendations and
intends, from time to time, to monitor conformity with them. Some
other factors to be noted are as follows:
• FOIA requires a request to be complied with “promptly and in any
event not later than the twentieth working day following the date
of receipt” which suggests that internal reviews should also be
completed promptly.
• Internal review is an important second opportunity for the public
authority to engage with an applicant and there are clear benefits
to both parties if the review is concluded within a reasonable
timeframe.
• The Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 stipulates an
internal review should be completed within 20 working days
following receipt of the request for review.
In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a
reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working
days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small
number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it
may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the
public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the
requester and explain why more time is needed.
In our view, in no case should the total time taken exceed 40
working days. In such cases we would expect a public authority to
be able to demonstrate that it had commenced the review procedure
promptly following receipt of the request for review and had
actively worked on the review throughout that period. Some public
authorities have complaints procedures which have a number of
stages or levels. The Commissioner does not expect an internal
review of a response to an FOI request to have more than one stage.
Given that this is a review of a statutory process with clear
rights for requesters and obligations on public authorities, a
degree of formality is expected.
Enforcement
The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a
public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time
the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his
complaint considered under section 50. Equally, it will be
beneficial to both complainant and public authority if an internal
review leads to a prompt and satisfactory outcome such that a
subsequent complaint to the Commissioner is not required. The
Commissioner has therefore set out above what he regards as
“reasonable” in terms of the timescale for completing an internal
review. He is keen to ensure that the time limit is adhered to and
that there are no unreasonable delays in carrying out reviews.
Internal reviews are referred to in the Code of Practice, and
significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with
internal reviews may lead to monitoring by the Enforcement team
and, in some instances, structured intervention, for example, the
issuing of a Practice Recommendation. The Commissioner’s
Enforcement Strategy provides more detail about practice
recommendations and structured intervention.
More information
If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of
freedom of information, please contact us.
Phone: 08456 30 60 60 01625 54 57 45 (National rate) E-mail: please
use the online enquiry form on our website
Website:
www.ico.gov.uk Yours sincerely,
fred robinson
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr Robinson
Thank you for your e-mail. You are correct in saying that a
judgment remains valid until it an appeal against that judgment is
successful
R D Meek
Russell Meek Customer Service Unit H M Courts Service 0845 456
8770
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers -------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
