link to page 1
Freedom of Information
Internal Review decision
Internal Reviewer
Katherine Leslie, BBC FOI Advisor
References
• IR2017008 / RFI20170032
• IR2017009 / RFI20170033
• IR2017010 / RFI20170040
• IR2017011 / RFI20170128
• IR2017012 / RFI20170137
• IR2017015 / RFI20170296
• IR2017016 / RFI20170257
• IR2017017 / RFI20170210
• IR2017019 / RFI20170336
• IR2017020 / RFI20170320
Date
6 March 2017
Requested information
The Applicant submitted ten requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) between 9 January 2017 and 19 February 2017. Al the requests were submitted
under the name “Common Law Jurisdiction” and/or “Bart Joseph” via the website
www.whatdotheyknow.com (WDTK).
The documentation for eight of the Applicant’s requests is publically available on WDTK at:
i.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/child_abuse_since_2007#incoming-
933380
ii.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/savile_and_operation_yewtree#comment
-76153
iii.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/paedophilia_policy_2#incoming-933409
iv.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/paedophile_enquiry#comment-76116
v.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/doctor_who
vi.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_on_involving_children_in
vii.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/doctor_who_and_operation_yewtree?ut
m_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-
viii. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/doctor_who_and_operation_yewtree
I am aware that two of the Applicant’s requests have been removed from WDTK. These two
requests were received by the BBC on 15 January 2017 and 22 February 2017 and assigned the
BBC reference numbers RFI2017012 and RFI20170336.
BBC’s response to the requests
The BBC responded to the Applicant’s first five requests
1 with the following identical response:
1 IR2017008 / IR2017009 / IR2017010 / IR2017011 / IR2017012
1
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2
“Under section 8(1)(b) of the Act, public authorities are not obliged to comply with a
request for information if the request does not provide the valid name of the
requester.”
The BBC responded to the final five requests
2 as follows:
“Under section 8(1)(b) of the Act, public authorities are not obliged to comply with a
request for information if the request does not provide the valid name of the requester.
We believe that “Bart Joseph” may be a pseudonym.”
In accordance with its obligations and duties under section 16 of the Act to provide advice and
assistance, the BBC referred the Applicant to the Information Commissioner’ guidance on what
constitutes a valid name.
3
Requests for internal reviews
The Applicant requested an internal review for all ten requests listed above on the basis that
the BBC should accept “Common Law Jurisdiction” as a valid name, and/or in the alternative
“Bart Joseph” should be accepted. As an example of the Applicant’s request for an internal
review
4, he or she said:
Why has is taken so long for you to decide that you don't like the name. Under both
Common Law and Statute you can be called Common Law Jurisdiction, but if you want
another name you could put Bart Joseph.
….
Yours faithfully,
Common Law Jurisdiction
Other examples of the Applicant’s correspondence includes
“[t]he act doesn't allow fake news
companies to call names fake”5 and
“[t]he FOI act doesn't give you the power to class people's
names as fake. Especially with no evidence to substantiate your claim.” 6
Issues on review
For a request to be in valid under section 8 of the Act, the request must:
a) be in writing;
b) include the requester’s name and an address for correspondence; and
c) describe the information being requested.
2 IR2017015 / IR2017016 / IR2017017 / IR2017019 / IR2017020
3The Information Commissioner’s guidance is available here: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-
to-freedom-of-information/receiving-a-request/
4 IR2017008, as submitted on 6 February 2017.
5 IR2017020, as submitted on 25 February 2017.
6 IR2017017, as submitted on 14 February 2017.
2
link to page 3 link to page 3
The issue I must consider in this internal review is whether the BBC was to correct to conclude
that the request was not valid, in accordance with section 8(1)(b).
The FOI Act and the Information Commissioner’s guidance
A requester can be an individual, a company or an organisation, but in each case section 8(1)(b)
requires that a request include the name of the requester.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued detailed guidance on what constitutes
a valid name, which I summarise below
.7 The intention of the legislation is for the requester to
provide their real name so their request could be processed in accordance with the
requirements of the FOIA. As outlined in the ICO’s guidance:
This is supported by the fact that there are circumstances under the FOIA where a
requester’s true identity can be relevant, for example, where an authority is considering
aggregating the cost of requests or refusing a request as vexatious or repeated’.
A real name
The ICO defines a ‘real name’, as:
The definition of a ‘real name’
21.
For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name
to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity.
…
25.
Any variation of the requester’s title or first name combined with their surname
(e.g. Mr Smith or John Smith) wil be sufficient to meet this requirement.
However, a first name or surname provided in isolation, or a set of initials, wil
not.
A company or an organisation
If a request is received from a company, a full registered name or a name that exists as a legal
entity (such as a trading name) should be accepted as valid.
8 The ICO goes on to state that:
37. Again, companies’ names should generally be accepted at face value, but in any
case where the authority has reason to verify the authenticity of the company, it
7 Information Commissioner’s guidance ‘Recognising a request made under the FOIA’. Accessed via
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1164/recognising-a-request-made-under-the-
foia.pdf.
8 Ibid. See paragraphs 35 to 39.
3
link to page 4 link to page 4
should check Companies House or the Charity Commission Register to clarify
whether it is a genuine organisation.
38. Requests from unincorporated bodies such as campaign groups or clubs are also
valid and in most cases should be accepted at face value. However, if the
authority has reason to check whether the organisation is authentic, it may need
to take a more pragmatic approach to validating its identity because these bodies
are often relatively informal associations of people with no ‘official’ status.
39. We therefore recommend that authorities adopt a lower and more informal test
for determining whether a name provided by an unincorporated body is genuine.
Pseudonym
The ICO provides that if a requester has used a pseudonym, then the request will be invalid. If
the name provided is not an obvious pseudonym and the public authority has no reason to
believe that a pseudonym is being used, the authority should accept the name provided at face
value.
9
Requests via WDTK
The ICO has included specific guidance concerning section 8(1)(b) to applied when a request is
received via WDTK:
10
Requests made through the whatdotheyknow.com website wil be valid, provided the
requester supplies their real name and describes the information concerned.
Decision
For the reasons articulated below, I am satisfied that the BBC was correct to conclude that the
Applicant has not provided a valid name to fulfil the requirements of section 8(1)(b).
Analysis
All ten requests for information were signed off from ‘Common Law Jurisdiction’ and/or “Bart
Joseph”.
Although the Commissioner advises that authorities should adopt an informal test for
determining whether an organisation is genuine, I do not consider that “Common Law
Jurisdiction” to be a genuine organisation. As recommended by the Commissioner, I have
searched relevant databases and publicly available information. I can find no reference to such
a group.
The Applicant claimed that “Common Law Jurisdiction” could in fact be someone’s real name.
To constitute a valid name, the Applicant must provide enough of their real name to give
9 Ibid. See paragraphs 28 to 31.
10 Ibid. See paragraph 106.
4
link to page 5 link to page 5
anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity. “Common law” is law
developed through the legal systems, and “jurisdiction” concerns the power provided to an
authority to make decisions and judgements. I do not consider “Common Law Jurisdiction” to
be a real name, nor does this phrase enable the BBC to identity the Applicant.
The Applicant has also said that if the BBC wants another name we “could put Bart Joseph”
11. The Applicant signed off four FOI requests
12 under the name “Bart Joseph” (within quotation
marks) in addition to “Common law Jurisdiction”. I consider that the reference to “if you need
another name” and the use of quotation marks around “Bart Joseph” implies that the Applicant
has used a fictitious name. I agree that the Applicant’s correspondence gave the BBC reason to
believe that “Bart Joseph” is a pseudonym and it is not the Applicant’s real name.
Verify the identity of the Applicant
The ICO’s website recognises that there may be situations where a public authority will be
required to verify a requester’s identity. In the circumstances of these ten requests, I consider
it appropriate to request that the Applicant verify his identity before the BBC is required to
consider any future requests as valid under section 8 of the Act.
If Applicant can provide evidence that he or she is “Common Law Jurisdictions” or “Bart
Joseph”, the BBC will reconsider the requests in accordance with the FOIA. The Applicant
should consider sending this evidence directly to
xxx@xxx.xx.xx, rather than submitting the
evidence through WDTK.
Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you can appeal to the
Information Commissioner. The contact details are: Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF; Telephone 01625 545 700 or
www.ico.gov.uk
11IR2017008 / IR2017009 / IR2017010 / IR2017011 / IR2017012
12 IR2017015 / IR2017016 / IR2017019 / IR2017020
5