Correspondence about CASP
Dear Cambridge University,
This is a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Could you please provide any email correspondence, and information relating to CASP (formerly Cambridge Arctic Shelf Programme) from 01/10/2019 and 04/11/2019.
To keep information retrieval focused, please search email records of:
(1) University of Cambridge Communications Team: Paul Mylrea (Director of Communications, ), Lauren Basham (Executive Assistant), James Hardy (Deputy Director of Communications), Andrew Aldridge (Head of Internal Communications / Deputy Director), Tamsin Starr (Head of News), Paul Casciato (Communications Manager).
(2) University of Cambridge Governance: Professor Graham Virgo QC ([email address]), Professor Andy Neely ([email address]), Professor Stephen Toope ([email address]) and the head of the VC’s Office Ángel Gurría-Quintana ([email address]).
Key word searching: “Zero Carbon”, “CASP”, “casp.cam.ac.uk” and “Earth Sciences” would direct searches to the following information within the time constraints of the request.
If you are to invoke Section 43 to withhold information in relation to any of these questions please note you must provide details of the exact FOIA exemption, details of who would be prejudiced by this information, and a public interest test justifying a conclusion with arguments for and against the release of the information.
If you are to invoke Section 12 to withhold information in relation to any of these questions please provide details of how locating, retrieving and extracting this information would exceed the appropriate limit of £450 as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. Please also be aware of your duty under section 16 (1) of the Act to advise and assist me in narrowing my request to bring it within the appropriate limit.
Thank you very much for your assistance with this request. If you would like any clarification on the information I have asked for, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. I look forward to receiving your response in the next 20 working days.
Could you also kindly confirm upon receipt of this email.
Yours faithfully,
Ollie Banks
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information. Your reference number is given in the subject line of this email. We will respond on or before 3 December 2019.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]
Further to your request for information, please find attached the University’s response.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]
Dear Zoe,
Thank you for your response. However, I am unsatisfied with this response and therefore I am requesting an internal review of the decision to withhold this information. Notably, I believe that your use of section 14(1) is inappropriate.
i. The request is vexatious
The definition in Lee v Information Commissioner and King’s College Cambridge EA/2012/0015, 0049 and 0085 was approved by the Upper Tribunal and defines “vexatious” as a request that is “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
The Information Commissioner's Office guidance gives 13 indicators of a vexatious request. You have applied the “Burden on the Authority” exemption that “the effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester.”
As you state in your refusal, it is “because of the grossly oppressive burden that would be imposed on the University by the requirement to manually review the emails in question to ensure that none of the information requested is subject to any substantive exemptions (including but not limited to that for personal information) set out in Part II of the Act”.
However, ICO guidance states there must be a “high threshold” with a viable case most likely where:
1. “the requester asked for a substantial volume of information” - this is clearly not the case because:
1.1 - the request specified key-word searches to direct to the relevant information
1.2 - the request specified correspondence between only certain staff members
1.3 - the request constrained the time period to the 01/10/2019 to 04/11/2019
2. “The authority has real concerns about potentially exempt information, which it will be able to substantiate if asked to do so by the ICO”
3. “any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because it is scattered throughout the requested material”. This is not the case because:
3.1 - using key-word searches to direct to the relevant information
3.2 - specified correspondence between only certain staff members
3.3 - the time period was narrowed to the 01/10/2019 to 04/11/2019
It is our strong belief, therefore, that the high threshold has not been met. The use of section 14(1) is consequently inappropriate.
In addition, the good practice of talking to the requester before claiming section 14(1), to see if they are willing to submit a less burdensome request was not followed.
As the Information Commissioner's Office guidance states "the key question the public authority must ask itself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress." This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request.
ii. A second perspective
Your justification for using Section 14(1) of “the grossly oppressive burden [...] by the requirement to manually review the emails in question to ensure that none of the information requested is subject to any substantive exemptions” could imply that your rejection of the request was because it would take too many resources to undertake the task. If this were the case (and I will subsequently outline why it is not), the appropriate rejection would have been under Section 12. This would also mean you would have a duty under section 16(1) of the Act to advise and assist me in narrowing my request to bring it within the appropriate limit. I explained this in my original request.
The reason that my request is not subject to section 12 is that I specified “Key word searching: “Zero Carbon”, “CASP”, “casp.cam.ac.uk” and “Earth Sciences” [to] direct searches to the following information within the time constraints of the request.” I also narrowed the information retrieval process by specifying only specific staff members within a specific time period. Your refusal to provide the requested information is therefore void because it (a) uses a justification that doesn’t fall under the remit of section 14(1) and (b) I gave clear directions on how to narrow the information retrieval to only correspondences which involve key-words, and only between specific staff members within a specific time period.
iii. This request is substantially different to previous requests I have made
You (rightly) raise the point that I have made other requests in the past about staff correspondence. However, these requests were about entirely different matters (Cambridge University’s material links with arms companies) and are thus not “substantially similar”. The information I am requesting is entirely different from previous requests I have made, regardless of the way I am asking this information to be retrieved.
I am also concerned that you took 20 working days to respond to my request - and then only to reject answering it. I direct your attention to your duty to “comply with section 1(1) promptly”.
Could you please confirm receipt of this request.
Kindly,
Ollie Banks
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for a review of our handling of request number FOI-2019-759. We will respond on or before 27 January 2020.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]
Further to your request for a review, please find attached the University’s response.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now