Dear Prime Minister's Office,

I’m seeking information from Downing Street under the freedom of information act.

Please kindly provide copies of all correspondence between the Prime Minster (Rishi Sunak) and the Australian Prime Minister over the past 14 days. I understand that you may need to redact some information as well as names, email addresses and contact details as well as potentially other information.

I look forward to receiving your response within a maximum of 20 days as you are required to do under the freedom of information act.

Yours faithfully,

Amy Woollcott

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my request.

I look forward to hearing back from you on or before the 14th of August.

Yours faithfully,

Amy Woollcott

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's Office's handling of my FOI request 'Correspondence between the Prime Minster (Rishi Sunak) and the Australian Prime Minster'.

I am requesting an internal review, with particular focus on the prejudice test and the public interest test, which I think has overlooked some important points.

You have cited the likelihood of prejudice to the UK’s relations to another state (in this case, Australia), but you do not say if you have consulted the Australian government or the Australian prime minister before deciding not to disclose this information to me. As you may be aware, under ICO guidance when a public authority wants to withhold information on the basis that to disclose the information would or would be likely to prejudice international relations, it must have evidence that this does in fact represent the concerns of both the UK and another state (in this case, Australia). It is not sufficient for the public authority to speculate on the prejudice which may be caused to International relations by the disclosure of the requested information. Please review this decision, and, if the exemption is upheld, demonstrate evidence and provide substantive reasoning to prove that this disclosure 'would, or would be likely to' prejudice international relations.

Please provide information about the perceived prejudice and the causal link to the release of information. As you may be aware, the prejudice test requires the authority to demonstrate that prejudice that is 'real, actual, or of substance' can be demonstrated to be a likely causal outcome of the release of the requested information. ICO guidance says that if 'the harm is only trivial, the exemption would not be engaged', and also advises on the meaning of 'would or would be likely to'. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...).

As you may also be aware, ICO guidance states: "Deciding whether the prejudice would occur or is only likely to occur is important. In this context the term “would prejudice” means that it has to be more probable than not that the prejudice would occur." [https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
Please review your decision and provide information about your decision regarding the likelihood of the prejudice arising.

You have cited the likelihood of prejudice to international relations between the UK and another state (in this case, Australia) . As you may be aware, ICO guidance states that when a public authority wants to withhold information on the basis that to disclose the information would or would be likely to prejudice the relationship between the UK and another state, it must have evidence that this does in fact represent the concerns of the UK as well as the other state (in this case, Australia). It is not sufficient for the public authority to speculate on the prejudice which may be caused to international relations between the UK and another state (in this case, Australia) by the disclosure. Please review this decision, and, if the exemption is upheld, demonstrate stronger evidence that this disclosure 'would, or would be likely to' prejudice the relationship between the UK and Australia.

You have cited the likelihood of prejudice to the relationship between the UK and Australia if you were to disclose the information that I have requested, but do not say if you have consulted the Australian government or the Australian prime minster before coming to this conclusion. As you may be aware, ICO guidance states that when a public authority wants to withhold information on the basis that to disclose the information would or would be likely to prejudice the international relationship between the UK and another state (in this case, Australia), it must have evidence that this does in fact represent the concerns of the other state (in this case, Australia) as well. It is not sufficient for the public authority to speculate on the prejudice which may be caused to the Australian State or Australian prime minister by the disclosure.

I note that you have conducted a prejudice test, but have not included substantial details of the prejudices considered and how the conclusion was arrived at. Therefore I would be grateful if you could review this response and, if the exemption is upheld, provide these details. The details of the prejudice test and public interest test in the original response to my FOI are vague/generic and lack any substantial details or or reasoning or evidence or examples to support the decision.

In your response to my FOI you state that “I recognise that there is a general public interest in issues that affect the UK's standing with its international partners”. This statement downplays the amount/strength of the public interest in favour of disclosing the requested information. There is significant public interest in favour of disclosing the requested information, this is because the UK government and the UK prime minister represent the UK public and so there is significant public interest in seeing how they represent the UK when engaging and communicating with other states (in this case, Australia) and other world leaders (in this case, the Australian prime minister).

In your FOI response you also go on to state that “Confirming or denying whether information is held may have a direct impact on the UK's relationship with a particular state”. However you do not confirm if you consulted that state (in this case, Australia) before coming to this decision. You have also provided no specific or substantive detail whatsoever to support this decision. You have not provided any supporting evidence that supports this decision. Additionally, no specific or substantive reasoning is provided to support this decision.

You also go on to state “we have set the level of prejudice refusing to confirm or deny whether information is held, at the higher level of "would" rather than "would be likely to”. Again, no specific (or substantive detail) detail or reasoning is provided to support this decision. And again, no supporting evidence is provided to support this decision.

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

Yours faithfully,
Amy Woollcott