Use of Pseudonyms in FOI

Tony Bowden made this Freedom of Information request to Information Commissioner’s Office

The request was successful.

From: Tony Bowden

28 November 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

I see from your response to a recent request[1], that the
Commissioner has recently decided that "a request made using a
pseudonym is not a valid request for information." It is stated
that "In reaching this view the Commissioner has also been mindful
of the Explanatory Notes for the Act, which are produced by the
Home Office".

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 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.

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 would also comment that your statement:
"He has, in particular, noted the use of the words, “the
name,” rather than, “a name'"
is rather odd, and seems to go against centuries of common law
tradition. As you are doubtless aware, the House of Lords, in Earl
Cowley v Countess Cowley declared:
"Speaking generally, the law of this country allows any
person to assume and use any name, provided its use is
not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary
loss."

There are many people who are commonly known by multiple names in
different contexts (Mrs Cherie Blair / Cherie Booth QC being one
prominent example), and a simple "a name"/"the name" distinction
seems to fall very short in such cases.

It may be, of course, that your response to "Sue D Nym" was merely
an over-simplified statement, and the more formal position
adequately copes with this and other similar questions as to true
identity. However, if it doesn't, I would appreciate any comments
that the ICO would be prepared to make on this matter (I realise
that this part would not strictly be an FOI request if such
information does not already exist, but in such a case I would ask
that you treat it just as a simple request for comment, and hope
that you would be prepared to do so, as this is clearly a matter of
some importance.)

Yours faithfully,

Tony Bowden

[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fo...

Link to this

Information Commissioner’s Office

1 December 2008

Link: [1]File-List

1st December 2008

Case Reference Number IRQ0224551

Dear Mr Bowden

Thank you for your email dated 28 November 2008 in which you have made a
request for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 30 December 2008 which is 20
working days from the day after we received your request.

Yours sincerely

Joanne Crowley

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad9C00A_files/filelist.xml

Link to this

Information Commissioner’s Office

9 December 2008

Attachment ICOReviewProcedure V6.doc
149K Download View as HTML

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Bowden

Further to my email of 1 December 2008 I am writing in response to your
request for information. As you are aware your correspondence has been
treated as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

I will address the information requests in the order in which you raised
them;

You asked if the Commissioner has engaged in any communication with the
Home Office or other Government department, in relation to this matter; if
so could the ICO provide copies of such correspondence, or a summary of
the communication.

I can advise you that the Commissioner did not engage in any such
correspondence, this office, therefore, does not hold any information of
the type requested.

You asked if advice had been taken from Counsel, or any other legal advice
had been sought, formally or informally; and if so you wished the ICO to
provide copies or a detailed summary.

I can advise you that advice from Counsel was sought on the subject,
however this office is   not able to disclose this correspondence, or a
summary of it’s content, to you as the information is subject of Legal
Professional Privilege under the provisions of section 42 of the FOI Act,
and therefore exempt from disclosure.

Section 42 of the Act states that

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.

Lastly you have requested copies of any memos, emails or other such
materials, that have been provided to ICO staff to instruct them of this
change of policy. I can advise you that there has been no such
informattion circulated internally at this time. This office, therefore,
holds no information of the type requested.

I understand that various other issues concerning the use of pseudonyms
are under consideration within the ICO and this may, or may not, result in
the issuing of advice to staff at a later date.

Outside of the above requests you invite comment “on this matter”. It
is not clear precisely which aspect of the use of a pseudonym you are
referring to. I would respectfully suggest that you consider writing to
our FOI Policy section to invite comment, providing an explanation of
precisely which aspect of the use of pseudonyms you are enquiring about.
This would not need to be in the form of a formal information request.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with the
response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or
make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write
to the Internal Compliance Team at the address below or e-mail
[2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process 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, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information
Act complaint or a Data Protection Act request for assessment online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached for your information.

Yours sincerely

Richard Kerr

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager.

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad433BB_files/filelist.xml
2. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: Tony Bowden

9 December 2008

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 Information
Commissioner’s Office's handling of my FOI request 'Use of
Pseudonyms in FOI'.

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

Although I would like a full review, rather than on specific
points, I would note the following:

* Although Section 42 is a qualified exemption, there is no
indication in your response that any consideration was given to the
public interest in this matter (nor whether privilege in this
matter could be (or has already been) waived). It is somewhat
surprising that the ICO would fail to follow its own guidance in
this regard.

* According to the ICO's own guidance, "in circumstances other than
litigation (eg in public debate on an issue) partial disclosure
will not result in waiver of legal advice privilege". Again, there
is no indication that any consideration was given as to whether it
might be possible to disclose some of the advice received (or a
summary therefor).

* This is clearly a matter of considerable public interest as it is
a significant shift in existing ICO policy, potentially affecting a
very large group of people.

* I find it rather incredible that there has been no information
circulated internally to instruct staff that there is now a new
policy on how to handle requests that are deemed to have been made
under a pseudonym. As case officers are now rejecting complaints on
this basis, clearly there was some communication to them about the
matter. Can you please clarify how staff were instructed of this
change?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Bowden

Link to this

From: Tony Bowden

9 December 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a follow-up to my previous message sent earlier this afternoon,
I would also note as a relevant data point when considering my
review that the Scottish Information Commissioner has released the
legal advice that they obtained on this same matter:

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

Yours sincerely,

Tony Bowden

Link to this

Information Commissioner’s Office

10 December 2008

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Bowden

Thank you for your correspondence dated 9 December 2008.

This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We will respond by 9 January 2009 which is 20 working days from the date
we received your recent correspondence.  This is in accordance with our
internal review procedures.

Yours sincerely

Richard Kerr

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radB352F_files/filelist.xml

Link to this

Information Commissioner’s Office

9 January 2009

Attachment RCC0226051 valid request guidance.pdf.pdf
48K Download View as HTML

Attachment RCC0226051 Opinion s8 FOIA.doc.doc
67K Download View as HTML

Attachment ICOReviewProcedure V7.doc
147K Download View as HTML

Attachment Review response 090109.doc
27K Download View as HTML

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Bowden

Please find the response to your request for review, which has been
conducted by Mr Gerrard Tracey, Assistant Commissioner.

Mr Tracey has released the legal opinion requested and that too is
attached, together with the recently published ICO guidance on the
subject.

I do hope that this information assists you, and apologise for my original
oversight in respect of the public interest argument.

Yours sincerely

Richard Kerr

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager.

 

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad10915_files/filelist.xml

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Information Commissioner’s Office only: