Dear University of Cambridge,

In response to a previous freedom of information request [1] you have stated that it is not possible to provide figures for the number of appeals against dismissal for the period 1 January 2004 to December 2008 as providing the information would exceed the appropriate limit in the relevant regulations. Whilst I would prefer to have the authoritative figures on appeals against dismissals in this period, figures which indicated the prevalence of such appeals, such as those provided by a random sampling exercise, would be a useful alternative.

Lest this request be dismissed as frivolous, I observe that random sampling is a standard research technique for determining the prevalence of something in a population where it is not feasible to survey the entire population. However, since despite my repeated requests [1] you have failed to provide details of how the files in question are indexed, I am afraid I do not have sufficient information to specify a suitable random sampling procedure in this request. Should you provide me with sufficient information to construct such a procedure I will be happy to do so; otherwise I am sure there are numerous individuals employed by the University capable of devising a suitable procedure.

You have previously indicated [1] that it takes on average ~2 minutes 45 seconds to retrieve the file of an individual dismissed between 1 January 2004 and December 2008 and extract the information I require. Therefore, please select a random sample of ~350 such files and provide the following information in respect of those files, broken down by calendar year and staff category (unestablished, assistant, academic-related, academic, etc):

1. How many appeals against dismissal have been heard by the University (or by some body on behalf of the University)? How many appeals against dismissal have been heard under the University's current Statute U?

2. How many of these appeals have succeeded?

3. How many post-dismissal compensation settlements have been reached?

4. How many of these settlements were subject to confidentiality agreements?

In addition, please provide the earliest and latest dates of dismissal in the files selected for the random sample (and the total number of files sampled). Please also provide details of the random sampling procedure used to select the files.

Please provide all information in electronic form.

Should you decide that providing the above would exceed the appropriate limit prescribed by the Freedom of Information Act (2000), I would accept a smaller sample of files, provided you told me how many files you had sampled and provided it was a reasonable number of files. I would also hope that, in such a case, the University would follow the appropriate guidance ("Using the Fees Regulations" issued by the Information Commissioner, namely:

"Where an authority refuses a request because the appropriate limit has been exceeded, it should, bearing in mind the duty under section 16 of the FOIA to advise and assist an applicant, provide information on how the estimate has been arrived at and provide advice to the applicant as to how the request could be refined or limited to come within the cost limit."

This guidance is available on-line at:

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

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

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

Dear University of Cambridge,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of Cambridge's handling of my FOI request 'Appeals against dismissal since 2004 (random sample)'.

In the University's reply to my e-mail making my FOI request, it has said that "[my] request will not be processed further" because it appears to believe that my e-mail making the request is not a valid request under the Freedom of Information Act (2000). However, according to Section 8(1) of the Act:

"In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference to such a request which—
(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested."

...and Section 8(2) makes clear that a request made via an e-mail counts as being "in writing". Thus my e-mail satisfies 8(1)(a). As in my e-mail I stated my name and provided an e-mail address for correspondence, it also satisfies 8(1)(b). Further, my e-mail clearly *described* the information which I was requesting (even if it may have done so in a manner to which the University takes exception), thus satisfying Section 8(1)(c).

Thus my e-mail constituted a valid FOI request and the University is in breach of Section 17 of the Act by refusing to process my request but failing to cite an exemption from Part II of the Act for its refusal.

However, it may be the case that my e-mail was misinterpreted as a request for the University to carry out some data processing exercise rather than a freedom of information request. Let me therefore give another description of the information which I am requesting that is completely EQUIVALENT to the description given in my original e-mail:

From any collection of ~350 random files of individuals dismissed by the University between 1 January 2004 and December 2008, please provide the following information, broken down by calendar year and staff category (unestablished, assistant, academic-related, academic, etc):

1. How many appeals against dismissal have been heard by the University (or by some body on behalf of the University)? How many appeals against dismissal have been heard under the University's current Statute U?

2. How many of these appeals have succeeded?

3. How many post-dismissal compensation settlements have been reached?

4. How many of these settlements were subject to confidentiality agreements?

In addition, please provide the earliest and latest dates of dismissal in the set of files for which the above questions were answered (and the total number of such files). Please also provide details of the procedure used to identify the files for which the above questions were answered.

It should be clear from the above equivalent formulation of my request that I am not requesting or instructing the University "to perform a random sampling exercise or to apply other standard research techniques on manual records". If the University has some method of providing the information I have requested that does not involve "a random sampling exercise" or "other standard research techniques" that is, of course, completely acceptable to me.

It may also be the case that the University is of the opinion that it does not hold the information I have requested.

However, I do not believe the University does not hold this information, since I assume that each of the files of individuals dismissed from the University between 1 January 2004 and December 2008 has at least one unique identifier associated with it. Therefore, for each of the 4 questions above, the collection of unique identifiers of the files which matched the criteria contained in the question (in conjunction with the staff category of the individual in that file and their date of dismissal) would provide the information requested.

Since Section 11(1)(c) of the Act provides for "a digest or summary of the information" to be made available to requesters if they so desire, it should be clear that my request for totals is such a "digest or summary" and so the information should therefore be supplied to me in that form.

In summary, I am requesting an internal review of the University's handling of my request because I believe the University is in breach of the following Sections of the Act:

* Section 1(1) as it has not supplied the requested information although it appears to be held and no exemption that justifies withholding it has been cited, and

* Section 17 as it has stated that it will not provide the information but has not cited an exemption from Part II of the Act, and

* Section 10(1) as its response has not been "prompt" since it has refused the request without doing any processing of it but has taken ~14 working days to communicate this to me, and

* Section 16 as it has failed "to provide advice and assistance" in helping me to obtain the information which I require, for instance by suggesting how I could make a request that it would be able to process and which would provide me with the information I required.

Finally, I would remind you that the Information Commissioner's Office has already had occasion to communicate with the University regarding its failure to carry out internal reviews of FOI requests in a reasonable time period (ICO Case Reference Number FS50246295). I would hope, therefore, that this request for an internal review would be handled in accordance with the Information Commissioner's guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews:

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

I have now received (on 10 May 2010) a response from the Administrative Secretary which I reproduce below.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

** Response from Administrative Secretary to my request for an internal review **

6 May 2010

Dear Mr Beckles,

Your email of 15 April about review of your FOI request 2010-63 has been forwarded to me.

I have considered the previous correspondence about your FOI request. I confirm that the ruling given in the second paragraph of Dr Allen's letter of 13 April 2010 is correct. and I therefore uphold it.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this review, you may, as you know, raise the matter with the Information Commissioner, whose address is The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Your sincerely,