Cambridge Magistrates Court List Information - Week Commencing 25 Feb 2013

Richard Taylor made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.

Dear Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Could you please release the information which would be expected to appear on the full copy of the court list in relation to appearances, hearings, trials etc. currently scheduled to be held in Cambridge Magistrate’s Court in the week commencing Monday the 25th of February 2013.

Regards,

Richard Taylor
Cambridge

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

My previous request for similar information was responded to promptly, in six days:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-magis...

This time the response is taking longer

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

I am writing to request an internal review of The Courts and the Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Cambridge Magistrates Court List Information - Week Commencing 25 Feb 2013'.

I have received no reply to my request. A previous similar request was dealt with promptly in around six days, however this request has taken over the twenty working day maximum permitted by law.

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

Regards,

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thank you for your email detailed below.

We were informed from the Court that your request was being handled as Business as Usual rather than under the Freedom of Information Act and that official correspondence would be sent out to you direct from them.

I apologise that you have not received this and will ask the court to response to you as soon as possible.

I am very sorry for the delay in getting this to you.

Many Thanks

Laura

show quoted sections

South East KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Taylor

 

Please see attached response to your request

 

Yours sincerely

Mike Cranwell
Operational Support Officer, SE Regional Support Unit
Please note: I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice
contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

I have submitted a complaint to the ICO:

"I am writing to complain to the ICO as two Freedom of Information Requests I made to the Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service, asking for (1) the court list, and (2) the court register, for my local Magistrate's court, on dates I specified, have prompted a response including the following:

"On this occasion your requests for information are not being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)."

I have had no explanation on the point of if, or, why my requests have been considered invalid Freedom of Information Act requests.

The public body has not informed me if they hold the information I have requested; and neither have they cited any exemption in the Freedom of Information Act which they think they can rely on to withhold some or all of the information requested.

The response I expected to my request was to be sent the material I had asked for; possibly with information redacted if FOI act exemptions permitted this. While not something I would expect the ICO to consider I note I would have expected the public body may have pro-actively decided to release more than it was required to do so by law in the interests of openness and transparency.

I note reference is made to the "Criminal Procedural Rules". No specific section of these extensive rules is cited, and it is not clear to me what, if any, relevance there may be to my request.

I made my requests in two separate emails; however the same reference number and response has been sent to both by the public body.

As is clear from the attached correspondence I made my request using the WhatDoTheyKnow.com service. I request that you do not provide my personal email or postal address(es) to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service, the Ministry of Justice, or other public bodies. I cannot see any reason doing so would be required to deal with this complaint.

Regards,

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk
"

cb-enquiries,

1 Attachment

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The latest response states:

"Dear Mr Taylor,
Request for information
I have been passed your request for information by the DACU as they have determined that it is not under the Freedom of Information Act.
It therefore falls to be considered by the court in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Rules part 5 and specifically rule 5.8 ( http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedu... ). In order for the court to determine what information can be released (if any), in accordance with rule 5.8, you need to specify precisely which case or individual cases you are interested in and what information you are seeking. Without this information it will not be possible to determine your request and no information can be supplied to you.
Please therefore identify precisely which case or cases you are requesting information for, and what information you are seeking from those cases.
Yours sincerely
"

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The response suggests I have not specified the cases of interest; this is clearly not true as I asked for the court list for a specified day.

I have previously sought information by specifying the parties involved in a case and those requests have been refused too:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

I have still not had a formal response as the Freedom of Information Act requires either providing the material requested or citing the relevant exemptions in the act justifying withholding it.

The latest response shows that the information is not accessible to me via other means (the Court Procedure Rules) - it it was available via such a route it would technically be subject to the exemption under S21 of the Freedom of Information Act), but that wouldn't matter because I'd have the information.

South East KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Taylor

Please see the attached response to your requests for information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mike Cranwell
Operational Support Officer

SE Regional Support Unit

 

Please note: I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice
contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

As noted above I had complained to the ICO about the handling of this request.

They have now responded, following the latest response, to say:

"If you are not satisfied with the response you will need to ask for an internal review."

I am surprised that a second internal review on the same request is being advised, but will follow their suggestion.

Re: My FOI request your reference FOI-80361 and ICO-81767
ICO Case FS5048873 (Mr Richard Taylor)

Following the Ministry of Justice's latest response to this request, on 20 June 2013, the ICO has advised me that if I am still not satisfied then I need to request a further internal review.

I would like to request such a further internal review, and for it to consider, but not limit itself to, the following points:

1. If the material requested is in fact exempted under Section 32 (1) (c) of the Freedom of Information Act. I suggest the court list is not only held for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter but is held for other purposes including communicating with the public

2. The application of Section 40(2) to the material requested. I understand the material may contain information considered exempt under this section, for example information about victims of alleged crimes. I would expect the material considered exempt under this section to be redacted, and not for its presence to be used as a reason for not disclosing the rest of the material.

3. If the duty which Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act gives public bodies to provide advice and assistance satisfactorily discharged. The advice I have received in relation to this request to-date has been bizarre for example on the 3rd of April 2013 I was told that I have not specified the cases of interest; this is clearly not true as I asked for information relating to a specified day. I would suggest that under the terms of Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act I should be clearly advised if, and how, I can, or cannot, obtain the information I have sought (albeit perhaps in a redacted form, or perhaps by inspecting it ).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

I understand this request is being dealt with alongside my related request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Regards,

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Midlands (RSU) KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Richard Taylor
 
Please find attached an acknowledgement to your recent request for an
Internal Review.
 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)
Midlands Regional Support Unit
e-mail: MidlandsRSUKILO@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to
make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means

 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Midlands (RSU) KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Richard Taylor,
 
Please find attached my response to your email of the 01 July 2013 in
which you asked for an internal review into the way the department handled
your request for information under reference: FOI/80361/13.
 
Kind Regards, 
 
Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer (KILO)
Midlands Regional Support Unit
email: [email address]
 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The internal review response upholds the previous refusals to provide the information; but adds that "Section 40(1) (requester’s own information), should also have been engaged."

I picked the date to request the information for on the basis it was just over twenty working days away from the date of my request. I had no expectation of my own personal information being on the court list and can think of no reason why it would be so.

The internal review response dated 26 July 2013 contains what I consider to be a number of inaccurate, or at the very least unclear statements.

"The Court was then asked to provide you with this information as normal court business and this was communicated to you. "
and
"The correct procedure is to request the documents from the court and the request can be considered by them using the Criminal Procedure Rules. "

The information I requested was not communicated to me. I was told, in the response on the 3rd of April 2013 that my request would not be responded to under the Criminal Procedure Rules, on the grounds: "you need to specify precisely which case or individual cases you are interested in and what information you are seeking. Without this information it will not be possible to determine your request and no information can be supplied to you."

"There are procedures already in place for the release of court documents, as in this case the criminal procedure rules"

My request has been considered not to be covered by the criminal procedure rules; as they have been judged to relate to specific, identified, cases only, and not as a court list or register, all case in a particular time period.

" Court lists are put on public display prior to the hearing date for a
short window of time as part of court process and procedure to facilitate the smooth
hearing of listed cases."

The information being sought is not placed on public display. A version of the court list, typically containing only names of defendants, the court room, expected time of the hearing and the prosecuting authority are posted, but this is not the full list, which includes additional information including the charges.

"the Court list of 25 February 2013 which you have requested contain not just third party information but your own personal information. Therefore, in addition to Section 40(2) (third party information), I judge that Section 40(1) (requester’s own information), should also have been engaged"

I have no knowledge of my own personal information being included on the 25 February 2013 court list. I think this statement is highly unlikely to be true. I can think of no reason for my personal information to be present on the court list.

Related article on my website: http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-magis...
--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

I have submitted a further complaint to the ICO; asking them to consider the same points as I raised prior to the internal review and including my comments on the internal review response.

South East KILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Taylor
Please see the attached response to your requests.
 
 

Yours sincerely

Mike Cranwell
Operational Support Officer, SE Regional Support Unit

 

Please note: I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice
contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The courts are no longer claiming my personal information is on the court lists/regiters and using that as a reason not to provide them:

"Since your complaint to the ICO we have reviewed this position and wish to inform you that we no longer
rely on section 40 (1). "

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The Information Commissioner has decided the Courts Service were entitled to withhold the requested information.

I have commented on the decision at:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-magis...