Rates: Scientology

William Thackeray made this Freedom of Information request to City of London Corporation

The request was refused by City of London Corporation.

From: William Thackeray

4 February 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide a copy of the legal advice which led to the
Corporation charging business rates at a reduced rate to Church of
Scientology Religious Education College Inc, a US corporation.

Yours faithfully,

William Thackeray

Link to this

From: COL - EB - Information Officer
City of London Corporation

9 February 2009

The City of London acknowledges receipt of your request.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: COL - EB - Information Officer
City of London Corporation

3 March 2009

Following your request of 4 February 2009, and our acknowledgement of 9
February, the City of London (CoL) responds as follows.

It is not possible to meet your request. In accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Public Interest Refusal
Notice. The exemption applied is section 42 - legal professional
privilege.

The CoL confirms that it holds the information, but it is considered
that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and withholding
the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. There is
a strong element of public interest inbuilt into legal professional
privilege itself and at least equally strong countervailing
considerations must be adduced for the public interest to weigh in
favour of disclosure. (Please see: Bellamy v The Information
Commissioner [2006] UK Information Tribunal, Reference: EA/2005/0023).
It is considered that such equal or overriding considerations do not
arise in this case. While there is a public interest in disclosing
information that enables scrutiny of a public authority's actions and
which encourages transparency in decision-making, in this particular
case the public interest weighs in favour of maintaining the exemption
as the issues remain live, and it is in the public interest that public
authorities are not disadvantaged in their legal affairs and are allowed
to conduct, in confidence, a free and frank exchange of information and
views as to their legal rights and obligations with those advising them
without fear or intrusion. The CoL's Departments demand and receive
comprehensive advice which directly affects the CoL's decision making.
Without that advice the quality of the decisions themselves would be
reduced and such a scenario would be contrary to the public interest.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the City of London has
handled your enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act, please make
your complaint in writing to email address:
[City of London Corporation request email] (emails sent to which address
are seen by four members of staff including the Corporate Complaints
Officer). For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints procedure, please visit
the following page, www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of
which is located the FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the City
of London's FOI complaints procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you
may request the Information Commissioner to investigate. The Information
Commissioner is a Crown appointment, responsible for monitoring
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact:
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: (01625) 545700. You may also like to visit
the website of his Office at: http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this communication. The supply of it does
not give a right to re-use it in a way that would infringe that
copyright, for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies
to the public or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the
material may be reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the
purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study,
criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of
the copyright owner.

City of London
www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: William Thackeray

4 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 City of London
Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Rates: Scientology'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...

My reasons for requesting an internal review are:

I understand the exemption for legal professional privilege, and I
agree with your application of that exemption to this case.

However, it is in the public interest for the public to know the
reasons why the Corporation has made this decision on taxation.

I therefore request that the legal reasons behind this decision be
released in a summary, paraphrased or redacted form which will not
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between the CoL and
its legal advisors in the future.

There is a particular public interest in this case, in that Church
of Scientology Religious Education College (CoSREC) Incorporated
has been denied UK charitable status by the Charities Commission,
and there is a possibility that the registered charities which
CoSREC supports are in fact 'sham charities' controlled by CoSREC
itself.

This is the reason why I am interested in knowing, and I believe
that there is a stong public interest in the public being able to
find out, whether CoSREC's support of certain specific charities
was a major factor in this decision by CoL.

If CoSREC's support of certain charities was a major factor in this
decision, and if those charities are in fact 'sham charities' under
the control of CoSREC itself, then there is a possibility that
fraud has been committed by employees of CoSREC and charity
trustees against CoL, the Charities Commission, and the taxpayer.

There is therefore a strong public interest in this information
being released.

Yours sincerely,

William Thackeray

Link to this

From: TC - Complaints
City of London Corporation

6 March 2009

The City of London acknowledges receipt of your complaint under section 50
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We aim to respond within 20
working days, beginning from the first working day after we received the
complaint.

Corporate Complaints Officer.
City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: COL - EB - Information Officer
City of London Corporation

1 April 2009

Following your request of 4 February 2009, our refusal notice of 3 March,
your complaint of 4 March, and our acknowledgement of 6 March, the City of
London (CoL) responds as follows.

The CoL has considered your complaint. The decision is that your complaint
is not upheld.

You requested " ... a copy of the legal advice which led to the
Corporation charging business rates at a reduced rate to Church of
Scientology Religious Education College Inc, a US corporation."

The section 42 exemption - legal professional privilege - was applied. You
have acknowledged that this exemption was correctly applied. The exemption
is subject to a public interest test. In your email of 4 March you stated
that you were requesting an internal review of the CoL's decision to
refuse disclosure as you believe the public interest weighs in favour of
disclosure of the information you had requested.

It is not possible to redact, paraphrase or summarise the information you
requested on the 4 February as to do so would compromise the legal
professional privilege which is being relied upon. The CoL's view remains
that the section 42 exemptions is engaged in respect of the information
you have requested and that the public interest in maintaining the section
42 exemption continues to weigh against disclosure of the information for
the reasons stated in the refusal notice of 3 March.

If you are dissatisfied with the decision, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. The Information Commissioner is a Crown
appointment, responsible for monitoring compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act. Please contact: Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: (01625) 545700.
Website: [1]www.ico.gov.uk

Corporate Complaints Officer.
City of London
[2]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation ( 1 April 2009)

Complaint submitted to the ICO 1 April 2009:

CoL refuses to release reasons behind recent decision on charging reduced business rates to a foreign corporation which has been refused UK charitable status.

Internal review has taken place, CoL is sticking with its original decision. I made a public interest argument in my email to them of 4th March 2009

For full information, see:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...

Many thanks,

William Thackeray.

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation (13 July 2009)

Received from the ICO:

13th July 2009

Case Reference Number FS50241934

Dear Mr Thackeray,

Further to our previous correspondence regarding your complaint against City of London Corporation (CoLC), I am writing to inform you that your case has now been allocated to me to investigate.�

As part of the Commissioner�s new approach to case work, the above case has been chosen to be prioritised and I have considered the papers in full. Where possible the Information Commissioner prefers complaints to be resolved by informal means. If this does not prove to be possible, he will usually issue a Decision Notice to you and the public authority once an investigation has been completed. This will inform you of his decision and the reasons for it.

Where the Commissioner decides that a request has not been handled properly he may specify what steps he believes are necessary to remedy the situation. This can include requiring a public authority to release information which has previously been withheld. A copy of the Decision Notice will be placed on our website (with your details omitted). If you disagree with the decision that has been reached you have a legal right of appeal to the Information Tribunal.

Your request

From the information which has been provided to us, I understand that you made a request to CoLC on 4 February 2009. Your request was as follows:

�Please provide a copy of the legal advice which led to the Corporation charging business rates at a reduced rate to Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc, a US corporation.�

It would appear that this request was received by the public authority on 9 February 2009.

�

CoLC provided a response to you on 3 March 2009 in which it refused to disclose the information you requested on the basis of the exemption[s] contained in section 42 � Legal Professional Privilege.

You requested an internal review of the public authority�s decision on 4 March 2009. On 1 April 2009 the public authority wrote to you with the details of the result of the internal review it had carried out. CoLC upheld their application of Section 42 on the basis that it was not possible to redact, paraphrase or summarise the information as to do so would compromise the legal professional privilege which was being relied upon.

The scope of the case

The focus of my investigation will be to determine if CoLC have correctly withheld information under section 42.

Section 42 states:

(1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.

I will therefore be writing to CoLC asking them to provide me with their full arguments for withholding the information which you have requested. Their response will enable me to assess their application of section 42. CoLC will be given 20 working days in which to respond to my letter.

Please contact me as soon as possible if there are matters other than these that you believe should be addressed. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint. If I do not hear from you, my investigation will focus only upon the matters identified above.

As I have indicated, the process of reaching a decision may take some time but I will update on the progress of the investigation you as appropriate but at least every 6-8 weeks. However, if you have any queries at any time you are welcome to write to me, email me at Arleen.Lennard@ico.gsi.gov.uk or telephone me on 01625 545 858.

It may not be possible for me to respond to enquiries immediately due to other work commitments but I will endeavour to provide a response as promptly as possible and will ensure that a response is provided within 14 working days of the receipt of any enquiry.

Yours Sincerely

Arleen Lennard

Complaints Officer

Information Commissioners Office

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation ( 5 November 2009)

ICO issued DN FS50241934 4 Nov 09.

Link to this

Alex Skene left an annotation (17 November 2009)

The ICO have now published the Decision Notice

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

"Whilst the Commissioner recognises the weight of the arguments in favour of releasing the requested information he has, on balance decided that they are outweighed by the arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption. As explained above the timing of the request and the fact that the advice remains live have both been key factors when reaching this decision. The Commissioner is satisfied that it is not possible to redact or paraphrase the information as the complainant has suggested so as to avoid disclosing information that would reduce the candour of exchanges between the public authority and its legal advisors."

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation (18 November 2009)

Appealed to the Information Tribunal 5 Nov 09, on the following grounds of appeal:

Grounds of Appeal, FS50241934, 5 Nov 09

1. The DN gives insufficient weight to the public interest in disclosure.

2. The DN does not consider the fact that no litigation is contemplated - this is a factor in favour of disclosure (p.7, ICO guidance 'legal_professional_privilege.pdf', v.2).

3. The DN does not consider the fact that COSREC Inc has been involved in numerous criminal activities over many decades. Much evidence, including criminal convictions, is available on this point.
For example, both COSREC Inc (as a corporate body) and its employees were recently found guilty of fraud in the Paris Criminal Court, and fined £545,000.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...
This introduces a reasonable suspicion of misrepresentation or unlawful behaviour on the part of COSREC, which is a factor in favour of disclosure.

4. The DN does not consider the fact that partial disclosure of the information has already taken place, as a factor in favour of further disclosure (p.9 ICO guidance 'legal_professional_privilege.pdf', v.2).

5. In weighing the pubic interest arguments, the DN (para 16 onwards) gives weight to a number of wider issues including:
- 'Ensuring that public authorities make decisions on the basis of fully informed and thorough legal advice',
- 'Preserving the ability of the public authority to defend its decision in the event of legal challenge.', and
- 'Preserving the general concept of legal professional privilege'.

If the public interest in releasing any specific piece of information is to be weighed against the public interest in preserving the wider concept of legal professional privilege in all cases, then clearly the wider concept will always outweigh the specific case.

In the factors against disclosure, the DN weighs the question of whether all legal advice given to all public authorities should be released; it should be weighing only the question of the release of a redacted, summary or paraphrased form of the advice given in this specific case.

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation (16 May 2010)

In the Information Tribunal, case won by the City of London.

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

However, the decision includes:

"46. The Tribunal upheld the IC’s Decision Notice and dismissed the appeal. It noted that Mr Thackeray sought an understanding of the reasons behind the decision taken by the Council that COSREC was entitled to rate relief. In the Tribunal’s view, this would be better satisfied by disclosure of the underlying facts taken into account by the Council. In its view the case for disclosure was likely to be stronger in relation to material that was not legally professionally privileged given the significant public interests that arise in this case. The Tribunal was aware however that the Council had refused disclosure of such information in response to Mr Thackeray’s further requests under FOIA. The Tribunal wished to recommend to the Council that it reconsider its position in the light of this Tribunal’s assessment of the public interests in favour of disclosure."

so something for everyone...

Link to this

William Thackeray left an annotation ( 6 August 2010)

An analysis:

http://www.xenu-directory.net/opinions/2...

Link to this

Anastasia left an annotation ( 8 September 2010)

Linking this related follow up FOI here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fu...

Link to this

Anastasia left an annotation (22 October 2010)

This is in fact complete see this FOI

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mi...

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
City of London Corporation only: