Court martial transcript

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear House of Commons,

The JCHR report HC 527 (28th report 2007-08) makes frequent reference to the transcript of a court martial R V PAYNE & ORS.

Please scan you disclose this transcript electroincally.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 18 November 2018,
received by us on the 19 November 2018, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 18 December 2018.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: Steve Elibank <[FOI #533383 email]>
Sent: 18 November 2018 16:33
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Court martial transcript

 

Dear House of Commons,

The JCHR report HC 527 (28th report 2007-08) makes frequent reference to
the transcript of a court martial R V PAYNE & ORS.

Please scan you disclose this transcript electroincally.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #533383 email]

Is [4][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

Freedom of Information Request F18-466

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
the House of Commons for an electronic copy of the of the R v Payne & Ors
transcript referenced in the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ 28^th Report
of the 2007-08 session.

 

Unpublished evidence used by a parliamentary committee for purposes of
parliamentary business is subject to parliamentary privilege and therefore
the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section
34(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Section 34 exempts
information from disclosure so far as it is required to avoid any
infringement of the privileges of the House, which includes the privilege
of the Committee to decide whether, when or how to disclose material it
holds. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not
apply.

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [1][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

Following an internal review, if the decision to apply section 34 FOIA
(parliamentary privilege) is upheld, a certificate signed by the Speaker
may be issued.  This certificate provides conclusive evidence that the
exemption was required for the purpose described in our response.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[2]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[3]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [4]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: Steve Elibank <[FOI #533383 email]>
Sent: 18 November 2018 16:33
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Court martial transcript

 

Dear House of Commons,

The JCHR report HC 527 (28th report 2007-08) makes frequent reference to
the transcript of a court martial R V PAYNE & ORS.

Please scan you disclose this transcript electroincally.

Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #533383 email]

Is [6][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI Commons,
Please can I haven an internal review:

1. You ahven't confirmed whether or not you hold the information.
2. This particular information is not privileged - it is a transcript of a criminal trial that took place in public. It is absurd to suggest that disclosing it would interfere with Parliament's privileges. It is quite unlike hte sort of information given as examples in the ICo guidance on section 34: these relate to material prepared specially for the committee, internal papers, draft papers, etc. This is very different.e

I also note that even if section 34 is involved the House of COmmons is able to disclose information voluntarily if it chooses. This is an appropriate such case. There is no pulbic interest in withholding and every public interest in disclosing.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Elibank

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

 

Request for Internal Review  F18-466

 

Thank you for your further email, copied below, requesting an Internal
Review of our response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

We will carry out this review and endeavour to provide a response within
20 working days. If you have any queries about the review, please contact
me with the reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

From: Steve Elibank <[FOI #533383 email]>
Sent: 10 December 2018 13:53
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Re: F18-466 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Please can I haven an internal review:

1. You ahven't confirmed whether or not you hold the information.
2. This particular information is not privileged - it is a transcript of a
criminal trial that took place in public. It is absurd to suggest that
disclosing it would interfere with Parliament's privileges. It is quite
unlike hte sort of information given as examples in the ICo guidance on
section 34: these relate to material prepared specially for the committee,
internal papers, draft papers, etc. This is very different.e

I also note that even if section 34 is involved the House of COmmons is
able to disclose information voluntarily if it chooses. This is an
appropriate such case. There is no pulbic interest in withholding and
every public interest in disclosing.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Elibank

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

 

Further to your Internal Review request, copied below, I am writing to let
you know that we will not be able to provide a response to you within our
deadline.

 

Please be assured that your review is being treated as a priority and we
will try reply to you as soon as possible; ideally no later than Friday 18
January.

 

Please accept our sincerest apologies for the delay.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: FOI Commons
Sent: 11 December 2018 15:46
To: 'Steve Elibank' <[FOI #533383 email]>
Subject: IR F18-466 Internal Review request acknowledgement

 

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

 

Request for Internal Review  F18-466

 

Thank you for your further email, copied below, requesting an Internal
Review of our response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

We will carry out this review and endeavour to provide a response within
20 working days. If you have any queries about the review, please contact
me with the reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[3]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [4]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

From: Steve Elibank <[5][FOI #533383 email]>
Sent: 10 December 2018 13:53
To: FOI Commons <[6][email address]>
Subject: Re: F18-466 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Please can I haven an internal review:

1. You ahven't confirmed whether or not you hold the information.
2. This particular information is not privileged - it is a transcript of a
criminal trial that took place in public. It is absurd to suggest that
disclosing it would interfere with Parliament's privileges. It is quite
unlike hte sort of information given as examples in the ICo guidance on
section 34: these relate to material prepared specially for the committee,
internal papers, draft papers, etc. This is very different.e

I also note that even if section 34 is involved the House of COmmons is
able to disclose information voluntarily if it chooses. This is an
appropriate such case. There is no pulbic interest in withholding and
every public interest in disclosing.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Elibank

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Elibank,

 

 

Further to your request for an Internal Review, please find our response
attached.  Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

From: Steve Elibank <[FOI #533383 email]>
Sent: 10 December 2018 13:53
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Re: F18-466 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Please can I haven an internal review:

1. You ahven't confirmed whether or not you hold the information.
2. This particular information is not privileged - it is a transcript of a
criminal trial that took place in public. It is absurd to suggest that
disclosing it would interfere with Parliament's privileges. It is quite
unlike hte sort of information given as examples in the ICo guidance on
section 34: these relate to material prepared specially for the committee,
internal papers, draft papers, etc. This is very different.e

I also note that even if section 34 is involved the House of COmmons is
able to disclose information voluntarily if it chooses. This is an
appropriate such case. There is no pulbic interest in withholding and
every public interest in disclosing.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Elibank

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir