Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Scientology documents
To Home Office by William Thackeray 26 January 2010
Scientology
To Home Office by William Thackeray 3 July 2009
Leaked Documents - Freedom of Information.
To Home Office by Paul Perrin 6 December 2008
Scientology gifts
To Home Office by William Thackeray 3 February 2009
PA Consulting Group
To Home Office by Stephen Gradwick 22 August 2008
Scientology docs: MEPO 2/10283
To National Archives by William Thackeray 21 September 2010
Scientology rates relief (Birmingham)
To Birmingham City Council by William Thackeray 15 April 2010
Scientology rates relief
To Department for Communities and Local Government by William Thackeray 26 August 2010
Scientology demonstrations
To City of London Police by William Thackeray 3 May 2010
Penny Mellor / CCHR / Scientology
To General Medical Council by William Thackeray 9 August 2010
9395_church_scientology: request electonic copy
William Thackeray made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office
The request was partially successful.
From: William Thackeray
5 February 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please provide an electronic copy of the document referred to on
this page:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/fr...
I note that page says, "Due to the volume of papers involved these
are avaialble [sic] in hard copy only."
However, I believe there is a strong public interest in having
these documents available electronicly, because they will be able
to be more effectively indexed, and they will be more easily
available to the public.
I believe this problem can be solved with the use of a scanner
which has a sheet feeder. These are available inexpensively from
many electronics retailers.
Alternatively, a scanning bureau can provide this service quickly
and inexpensively - such services are priced from around 1p/page.
This would certainly be less expensive in the long term than the
department photocopying the documents each time a new request for
them is received.
Yours faithfully,
William Thackeray
From: Information Access
Home Office
18 February 2009
Dear Mr Thackeray,
Please find attached an update to your request for published documents on
Home Office website.
Yours sincerely,
John Gomes
Information Management Service | Shared Services Directorate
Financial & Commercial Group
4th Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London
SW1P 4DF
[1]www.homeoffice.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
From: William Thackeray
23 February 2009
Dear John,
Thank you for your help with this request.
Could you please upload the PDF files to this web page:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93...
which provides me with the facility to receive large files over the
web.
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
From: William Thackeray
23 March 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's
handling of my FOI request '9395_church_scientology: request
electonic copy'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93...
My reasons for requesting a review are:
- The documents have not been released.
- The statutory time limit has expired.
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
From: Information Access
Home Office
26 March 2009
Dear Mr Thackeray
Thank you for your e-mail of 23 March asking for an internal review of the
decision not to supply information released under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 in an electronic format.
I have been asked to carry out the review and hope to reply to you no
later than 21 May.
Yours sincerely
Steve Kirk
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor, Seacole Building (NE)
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: William Thackeray
26 March 2009
Dear Steve,
Thanks for your reply to my request for an internal review.
The problem seems to be no more than an oversight - apparently the
files are ready to go and the Home Office has decided to release
them, all you need to do is actually send them to me.
In respect of the internal review, I would point out that the
deadline allowed to you by law (as interpreted by the ICO in
guidance at
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
) gives you a legal duty to respond siginificantly sooner than 21st
May.
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
From: Information Access
Home Office
26 March 2009
Mr Thackeray
Thank you for your message.
We are treating your complaint as an internal review as you have already
asked for the relevant files in an electronic format and you were told on
18 February that we could not place them on the Home Office website.
However, we were prepared to send them to you on disk.
I now need to consider if your request was properly considered paying
particular attention to section 11 of the FoI Act.
The Home Office has a target to reply to requests for internal reviews
within 40 working days. This is a target, but we always try to reply
before the date is reached.
Steve Kirk
Information Access Team
show quoted sections
From: William Thackeray
27 March 2009
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your speedy reply.
I'm confused. It seems that the Home Office is willing to send me
these files on a CD-ROM, but unwilling to send them to me over the
Internet. I don't see how the medium on which the files are
transported makes any difference to their FOI status.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, so I'm going to summarise
where we are on this:
1)
I asked for certain files to be released electronically.
2)
John Gomez confirmed that the files were available, and said that
although the Home Office would not publish them on its website, you
would be happy to send them to me by CD-ROM.
3)
I asked John to send me the files using the website
www.whatdotheyknow.com, which provides me with the facility to
receive large files.
4)
I received no further response, so I asked you for a review.
Could you now just send me the files, please?
Once I've received them, I will be happy to retract my request for
an internal review.
On the issue of internal review deadlines: it seems odd to me that
the Home Office would choose a target date for reply which would
put you in breach of the FOIA as interpreted by ICO Guidance, but I
suppose that it's your choice whether to meet your legal
obligations or not.
If the reply is overdue (according to the deadline laid down in law
as interpreted by the ICO in Guidance, not according to your
deadline) then I will forward this request to the ICO as an
official complaint.
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
From: Information Access
Home Office
19 May 2009
Dear Mr Thackeray
Please see our reply to your complaint about information being sent to you
electronically.
Yours sincerely
Steve Kirk
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor, Seacole Building (NE)
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: William Thackeray
19 May 2009
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your reply to my internal review request.
As you can see from our previous correspondence, I'm not asking for
the files to be emailed to me.
What I'm asking is that they be uploaded, over the web, to this web
page:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93...
using the link marked "Home Office only: Respond to request" to
upload the files.
I note that in your internal review you did not provide any reason
why this is not reasonably practicable, instead choosing to address
a request I had not made (i.e. that the files be supplied by
email).
As the Home Office is for some unknown reason refusing to upload
the files, please send the CDs to:
"request/9395_church_scientology_request"
WhatDoTheyKnow.com
[address removed]
London
UK
Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
Alex Skene left an annotation (31 May 2009)
2 CDs have arrived, with the following files.
CD1:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
CD2:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
Some of the files look identical between both CDs however they have different filesizes for reasons unknown. It's not known why they sent 2 CDs.
Alex Skene left an annotation (31 May 2009)
Scanned text from covering letter:
================
Home Office 4th Floor, Seacole Building, London SW1P 4DF
Telephone: 0207 035 1029
E-mail: Info.Acoess@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Web Site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Dear Mr Thackeray,
Thank you for your request for a copy of the released papers relating to information on the Church of Scientology from 1 January 1993 to present.
The released papers have been scanned in PDF format onto 2 CDs, which are enclosed with this letter.
If you have any further queries then please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below:
Information Rights Team
Information Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Yours sincerely,
John Gomes
Information Rights Team
William Thackeray left an annotation ( 5 June 2009)
My thanks to Alex and the WDTK team for their help with this.
From: William Thackeray
5 June 2009
Dear John,
Thank you for sending the Scientology-related FOI files on CD-ROM.
I note that these files have been redacted - in some cases just
names and other personal details, but in some cases much more than
that.
Could you please provide the reason(s) why these redactions have
been done?
Yours sincerely,
William Thackeray
From: Information Access
Home Office
11 June 2009
Dear Mr Thackeray,
I can confirm that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Sections 27(1)(a), 32(1), 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b) and 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. These exemptions respectively relate to international relations, court records, formulation of government policy, the effective conduct of public affairs and legal professional privilege.
You will notice that there have been a number of redactions made to the papers sent to you earlier. Names of officials have been removed as they were irrelevant to the scope of the previous request. All other redactions have been made under the exemptions specified in the above paragraph.
Yours sincerely
John Gomes
Information Management Service | Shared Services Directorate
Financial & Commercial Group
LG Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London SW1P 4DF
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
show quoted sections
From: William Thackeray
11 June 2009
Thank you, John. I'm going to run this past the ICO, to see if they
agree with your application of these exemptions, but thank you
nontheless for your time and attention on this matter.
Best wishes,
William.
William Thackeray left an annotation (11 June 2009)
To the ICO:
Dear Tony,
Some of these documents have been very heavily redacted, so I'd like to take that forward with you as a complaint please.
The Home Office says
"I can confirm that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Sections 27(1)(a), 32(1), 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b) and 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. These exemptions respectively relate to international relations, court records, formulation of government policy, the effective conduct of public affairs and legal professional privilege."
I request that you assess whether these exemptions have been correctly applied.
Full correspondence at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93...
Many thanks,
William
Ben Jones left an annotation (12 June 2009)
Can someone other than the original requestor ask for an internal review, or submit a complaint to the ICO?
William Thackeray left an annotation (14 June 2009)
Ben - I don't know, but the ICO will be able to tell you. If not then there's nothing to stop you from requesting the same information yourself.
They have - eventually - released the documents, and I've asked the ICO to consider their redactions, so I'm not seeing that there's much left to complain about here ... ?
William Thackeray left an annotation (14 June 2009)
This is the ICO's response in respect of the time issue (it's out of sequence, sorry, this is the email I was responding to with my 'Dear Tony' above).
10 June 2009
Case Reference Number FS50240381
Dear Mr Thackeray
Information request to the Home Office
Thank you for your correspondence dated 5 June 2009 in which you complain about the time taken for the Home Office to carry out an internal review that you requested on 17 February 2009.
Although there is no statutory time set out in the Act within which public authorities must complete a review, the Commissioner has issued guidance on this matter (Good Practice Guidance 5). The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.
I have written to the Home Office reminding it of its responsibilities.� I have attached a copy for your information.� You will see from my letter that significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews by public authorities are monitored and where appropriate further action may be taken.
If we can be of any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a national rate number, quoting your case reference number. You may also find some useful information on our website at www.ico.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Dixon
FoI Casework Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner�s Office
... and here's the attachment ...
Information Access Team Manager
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Home Office
2 Marsham St
London
SW1P 4DF
10 June 2009
Case Reference Number FS50240381
Dear Sir/Madam
Complaint from Mr William Thackeray
The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr Thackeray stating that having requested an internal review on 17 February 2009 he did not receive the outcome of the review until 29 May 2009. We enclose a copy of the internal review request for your information.
Guidance
The Commissioner has issued guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews (Good Practice Guidance 5). The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.
A full copy of this guidance is available on our website (www.ico.gov.uk) under the Freedom of Information guidance section.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...
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.
Internal reviews are referred to in the section 45 Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews
will be monitored by the Enforcement team. In some instances structured intervention, for example the issuing of a Practice Recommendation, may be necessary.
More detail about the Commissioner’s enforcement strategy is available on our website under the Freedom of Information enforcement section.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...
If you need to contact us about this complaint please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Dixon
FoI Casework Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Encl. Copy of request for internal review 17/02/09
Richard Taylor left an annotation (28 January 2010)
The requestor, William Thackeray, has used Optical Character Recognition to produce versions of the documents with accessible text.
These have been uploaded to WhatDoTheyKnow and made available from:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/files/requ...
I have invited Mr Thackeray to make a further annotation linking to specific files and making any notes he feels will assist others.
--
Richard - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer
William Thackeray left an annotation (28 January 2010)
My thanks to Richard for uploading these documents to WDTK.
OK, so the Home Office sent 2 CDs.
On the first CD:
"CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - JUDICIAL REVIEW FCU-03-0001-0029-003-1"
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
"IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY INCLUDING PASSPORT ISSUES - SCIENTOLOGY -LAB-99-0034-0064-042-A"
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
And on the second CD:
"CHARITALBE STATUS - SCIENTOLOGY - CHA95 0054-0004-0001"
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
"CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - JUDICIAL REVIEW FCU-03-0001-0029-003"
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
"IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY INCLUDING PASSPORT ISSUES - SCIENTOLOGY - LAB 99-0034-0064-042-A""
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
Some of the files on CD2 have the same name as files on CD1 - can't tell if these are the same without doing a side-by-side comparison of each page, so I've kept both versions in case they're not the same. The filesizes on the CDs as shipped from the Home Office were different...
I've also extracted a single page:
http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/...
to show the high level of redaction that's been applied to these files - in this case, pretty much all details of sender, recipient and subject have been redacted. Even the pronouns have been redacted, to keep secret the gender of the civil servants involved. Which seems a little unnecessary to me.
William Thackeray left an annotation (15 June 2011)
Continued at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sc...
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
William Thackeray left an annotation (14 May 2009)
Home Office is refusing to release electronic copy of information which it will release in hardcopy. Internal review requested but not carried out within reasonable time. No response to my most recent email asking for clarification.
Full details at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/93...
Link to this