Mr T Bowden

9 January 2009

Reference RCC0226051

Dear Mr Bowden,

I write further to your letter dated 9 December 2008, requesting an internal review of the handling of your information request `Use of Pseudonyms in FOI' dated 28 November 2008.

The internal review has been carried out by me, Gerrard Tracey, Assistant Commissioner. I confirm that I was not involved in the previous handling of this request.

This letter is to inform you of the outcome of this review.

I have now conducted a comprehensive review of your request, our handling of that request, the original decisions, the response that was sent to you, the points you make in your request for internal review and the withheld information.

For ease of reference I will address the three elements of your requests in the order in which you originally submitted them and in which we previously responded.

1. Can you please tell me if the Commissioner has engaged in any
communication with the Home Office, or any other government
department, in relation to this matter; if so, could you please
provide copies of any correspondence and/or notes relating to same,
or, if that is not possible, a summary of the communication.

I confirm that the Commissioner did not engage in any communication with the Home Office or any other government department in relation to this matter and that therefore no recorded information is held in connection with this part of your request.

2. I would also ask if any advice has been taken from counsel, or any
other legal advice has been sought, formally or informally; and
again, if so, to provide copies of it. Again, if it is not possible
to provide the correspondence, please provide as detailed a summary
as possible.

I confirm that, as stated in the Mr Kerr's response to your request, advice was taken from Counsel on this matter. Previously, it was claimed that section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act (legal professional privilege), applied to this advice and that it was being withheld. As you correctly point out, we failed to explain in our response what our public interest considerations were in relation to this qualified exemption, we also failed to explain why they supported maintaining the exemption I apologise for that oversight in this case. I have discussed this point with the relevant section and advised how this should be addressed to avoid such oversights in the future. That said, one of the main points of conducting an internal review is to provide an opportunity for a public authority to reconsider the way in which it has handled a request and the decisions it made. In this case I have concluded that it would be helpful to both the public and public authorities to have access to the advice that we received in relation to this matter. I therefore attach a copy of the legal advice. I have also attached a copy of the ICO guidance which was published yesterday on the basis of that advice. This can also be accessed via the following link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/name_of_applicant_fop083_v1.pdf

3. Please also provide copies of any memos, emails, or other such
materials, that have been provided to ICO staff to instruct them of
this change of policy, and in particular, to tell them how to go
about deciding whether or not a name is a pseudonym.

I confirm that, as you were advised by Mr Kerr, the ICO does not hold any recorded information in relation to this part of your request. Following receipt and consideration of the advice referred to above staff were informed verbally how to deal with section 50 complaints which related to this matter. However, if we do develop written guidance for staff in this area I will be happy to provide you with a copy if you still wish.

In conclusion, I find that in relation to parts 1 and 3 of your request the ICO does not hold any recorded information. In relation to part 2 of your request, we should have explained the public interest arguments that were considered in relation to the application of section 42 and the withholding of the information, again I apologise for that omission. As I have decided to disclose the legal advice obtained it is not necessary to set out those considerations in this instance.

I hope that you find this information and the copy of our new guidance helpful.

If you are not content that your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler under the legislation. To make such an application, please write to the Case Reception Team, The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF or visit the `Complaints' section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely

Gerrard Tracey

Assistant Commissioner