Expenditure on the conflict with the Dean

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Christ Church, Oxford should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Christ Church, Oxford,
Further to my previous request , what is the amount of money spent by Christ Church on the action against the Dean , including legal fees, tribunal costs , expert advice ( legal and otherwise) , Public Relations expenditure, and any other related spend for the period April 2020 to April 2021.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Fox

James Lawrie, Christ Church, Oxford

1 Attachment

Ian Watson, Christ Church, Oxford

Many thanks for this, James.
Best wishes,
Ian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: James Lawrie <[email address]>
Sent: 11 May 2021 11:34
To: [FOI #747115 email]
<[FOI #747115 email]>
Subject: FOI response
 
 

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

After the refusal , I have request a review of that decision by the college.

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

This is my request for internal review>>>
Professor Ian Watson Censor Theologiae

I note the recent response from James Lawrie to my FoI request for expenditure on the legal and PR costs relating to the dispute with our Dean.

In it he states that the (astonishingly accurate and surprisingly low figure) of charitable funds spend on the matter for 2019/20 was only available to me because it had been derived and prepared at the request of the Charity Commission after at least 21 hours effort.

He states that no comparable exercise has been undertaken for the year 20/21, and as it would , he claims , take slightly longer that the maximum permitted effort for FoI responses (18 hrs) , he declines to provide the data.

May I formally request a review of this refusal.

I am very surprised that the Charity Commission has not already requested this data , as surely it is at the heart of their investigation into Christ Church financial probity and use of funds, and it is worrying in itself if , by his own admission, no monitoring or control of this expenditure is taking place.

Thank you

Alan Fox

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

This is the text of the ChCh "independent review" of their refusal . I will lodge an appeal to the Inf Commissioner shortly.
---------------------------------
Dear Mr Fox,
I refer to your email of 13 May 2021, which requests that Christ Church carry out an Internal Review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). We have sought to deal with your request within 20 working days as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Section 45 Code of Practice.
It was explained that Christ Church had considered your request and that it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the Act if Christ Church were to comply with it, because we estimate that the time required to determine whether the information is held and if so, to locate, retrieve and extract it, would exceed the maximum amount of time a public authority is required to spend.
I was not involved in the decision. I have considered Christ Church’s handling of that request and the application of Section 12 afresh. I am satisfied that the request was handled appropriately, and that Section 12 applies for the reasons set out in the response of 11 May 2021. The estimate was based on advice from our professional advisors, who record their time and could explain with some precision how long the previous figure had taken to collate and provide. As stated, most of the work undertaken to provide the previous figure to you was prepared in response to a request for the Charity Commission and it was therefore information Christ Church already held and which it did not need to locate, extract, retrieve or disaggregate from costs incurred on other matters which were not “action against the Dean”. The additional cost to update the figure given to the Charity Commission in order to cover the period between when the information had been originally provided to the Charity Commission and the period covered was less than the cost limit under section 12 and so we agreed to provide a figure to you.
I can confirm that a similar exercise has not been undertaken to disaggregate the invoices to cover any work which may be caught for fees incurred in respect of “action against the Dean” for the period from April 2020 to April 2021 (some of which period had not in any event passed at the time of your request and in respect of which no information was therefore held) . We would therefore have to spend a considerable amount of time before we could reply to your request for this information. However, I want to refute the speculative statement that this indicates Christ Church has not exercised appropriate and careful scrutiny of its external spending. We have done so but have sought legal and other advice during the period of your request on a number of matters.
I am sure that this will be disappointing for you. If you remain dissatisfied, you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner’s address is:
Information Commissioner Wycliffe House Water Lane
Wilmslow SK9 5AF Tel: 0303 123113
Further information for submitting complaints to the Information Commissioner is available at http://www.ico.org.uk/complaints
Yours sincerely, Ian Watson
Professor Ian Watson Censor Theologiae

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

Request passed to Information Commissioner today. They declined to use my previous ICO case on this matter , so I fear it will be a long wait for them to appoint a case officer . (it took 6 months last time). I was only allowed 200 characters in my covering letter , but I will add a fuller exposition of the reason to appeal this , which I will pass to the ICO when they get in touch.

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

REASON TO APPEAL TO ICO
The request for spend on the matter of the Dean for year 2019-2020 was finally provided by the Treasurer around the same time that your case officer was appointed. (IC-46690-P3P6) I raised a new request for the same information for 2020-2021. This was refused, and refused on internal review.
They have relied upon an opinion from their "professional advisors" that the cost of collating the information exceeded the 18 hours permitted under the law and section 12. They based that estimate on the amount of time it allegedly took to compile the answer for the period 2019/2020. (The Charity Commission had requested that data, so they had to undertake the exercise).
I infer that the college claims that it does not yet know how much it has spend on this particular subset of legal advice for 2020-2021.
I wish to question the validity of their reason for refusal.
a) I find it strange that it supposedly took so long to collate the 2019-2020 data , given that "billable hours " logs must be available. The provision of this ongoing cost analysis is surely something any large firm should have at its finger-tips from a scan of their internal time logging system. So I am a little credulous as to this response. I note that the figure itself would not be deemed confidential were it to be available. How can Christ Church have completed their audited accounts if they really do not have this information?
b) I would have thought that the cost to Christ Church of obtaining this information would be minimal , as all they need to do is request an interim bill from the lawyers. Surely it is part of their duty as service providers to keep the client informed of costs, and not to charge for doing that. (And as I stated above , I find it implausible that breakdown by case would not be readily available, especially after last years alleged effort to do so, they would now be particular about monitoring it , given the Charity Commissions ongoing investigation.)
c) I understand that Christ Church have employed more than one firm of solicitors , plus a PR company in this particular campaign . The response covered the refusal of costs just from one of those.
d) The Trustees have a duty to ensure that all spend is proportionate , fair , justifiable and is formally approved. Although this is an internal matter for the GB and the Charity Commission, it again raises a question mark over the Treasurers refusal to divulge any data.
I am tempted to conclude that the Treasurer is deliberately hiding or obfuscating the spend on this campaign. This information should really be in the public domain as the long running battle between the GB and the Dean is attracting considerable press comment and speculation. I have asked the Charity Commission to confirm that they have not requested this data , (and if not , why that is the case) as surely it is vital to their ongoing investigation into misuse of charitable funds. They have refused to comment.

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

And here is a similar letter I send back to the ChCh Treasurer. (He said my final question would be treated as a new FoI)>>>
To Ian Watson and James Lawrie
Dear Sirs,
I write further to my FoI request for "expenditure for the case against the Dean for year April 20 - April21". and the text of the recent (9th June) internal review by Professor Watson (Censor Theologiae) justifying the refusal.

I have referred the refusal to the Information Commissioner , but meanwhile , I thought it would be useful to explore the response a little further.

I note you have relied upon an opinion from your "professional advisors" that the cost of collating the information exceeded the 18 hours permitted under the law and section 12.

You say they based that estimate on the amount of time it allegedly took to compile the answer for the period 2019/2020. (The Charity Commission had requested that data, so you and they had to undertake the exercise).

I infer from that , that the college does not yet know how much it has spend on this particular subset of legal advice in the most recent year.

Several points occur to me.

a) I find it strange that it supposedly took so long to collate the 2019-2020 data , given that "billable hours " logs must be available within the law firms.

b) If you really have not received "cost to date" and projections (budgets) for the coming months , relating to what I shall broadly call "the second Tribunal", I find it difficult to see how the trustees (ie the full GB) can discharge their duty , (as reminded of a few months ago by the Charity Commission) to judge that any planned action is fair, appropriate and proportionate and within the rules of your charitable status.

The provision of this ongoing cost analysis is surely something any large firm should have at its finger-tips from a scan of their internal time logging system. So I am a little credulous as to this reason for rejection .

I note that the figure itself would not be deemed confidential were it to be available.

c) I would have thought that the cost to Christ Church of obtaining this information would be minimal , as all you need to do is request an interim bill from your lawyers. Surely it is part of their duty as service providers to keep you informed of costs, and not to charge you for doing that. (And as I stated above , I find it implausible that breakdown by topic would not be readily available, especially after last years alleged effort to do so).

d) I understand that Christ Church have employed more that one firm of solicitors , plus a PR company in this particular campaign . Your response appears to cover the refusal of costs just from one of those.

e) I would have expected the Charity Commission to have already requested this subsequent year data , as part of their ongoing investigations into Christ Church. If not , it is surely some vital evidence that you will need in any event to support your defence.
The other way forward would be for me to tighten to request such that it could be completed within the permitted time. I appreciate you did consider this option in your initial reply , and ruled it out. However would it be any more straightforward if for example I made the request >>

(i) the amounts billed and/or paid to date to all firms of solicitors instructed by the Governing Body in connection with the investigation into the alleged incident in the cathedral sacristy on 4 October 2020 and the following decision to set up a Tribunal under clause XXXIX of the college Statutes to determine a charge against the Dean based on such allegation,

(ii) the estimated legal costs (including counsel's fees) of such Tribunal proceedings, and (iii) the agreed or estimated fees payable to the independent chair of such tribunal, should it proceed.

Finally , might I add a simple rider question relating to the above, rather than submit a separate FoI?

** At what point was the full GB informed of the likely costs for proceeding with the "second tribunal". How and when was the decision to authorise that expenditure made?

(You were able to provide me with some extracts from minutes etc in your response to my first FoI regarding expenditure authorisation mechanisms for the earlier time period).

Thank you

Alan Fox

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

I HAVE RECEIVED A REPLY FROM LAWRIE in response to the above letter. Whilst he continues to refuse to disclose the spend for 2020/2021 , he has replied to my "alternate" question re spend on Tribunal#2. >>>>>

Christ Church OXFORD OX1 1DP
Our Ref: JL/SG/af
27 July 2021
Alan Fox Esq
Dear Mr Fox,

I refer to your request for information, dated 30 June 2021.

Christ Church has treated this as a new request under the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”).

You requested the following information.

(i) the amounts billed and/or paid to date to all firms of solicitors instructed by the
Governing Body in connection with the investigation into the alleged incident in the
cathedral sacristy on 4 October 2020 and the decision to set up a Tribunal under clause
XXXIX of the college Statutes to determine a charge against the Dean based on such allegation;
(ii) the estimated legal costs (including counsel's fees) of such Tribunal proceedings; and
(iii) the agreed or estimated fees payable to the independent chair of such tribunal, should it proceed.
I have dealt with each point in turn below.

(i) The global figure for the amounts billed to date to all firms of solicitors instructed by
the Governing Body in connection with the investigation into the alleged incident in
the cathedral sacristy on 4 October 2020 and the decision to set up a Tribunal under
clause XXXIX of the college Statutes to determine a charge against the Dean based on
such allegation is £66,059.85 plus vat.
(ii) Christ Church cannot disclose its estimated legal costs because they relate to ongoing
proceedings and any such disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs. This is because disclosure of such information, at
this stage in proceedings, would significantly undermine the Christ Church’s position
in respect of the ongoing processes. I am therefore withholding this information
under section 36(2)(c) of the Act.
Christ Church accepts that the exemption under section 36(2)(c) is not an absolute
exemption and it has therefore weighed the public interest in maintaining the
exemption against the public interest in the disclosure of this figure. Whilst I accept
that there may be a certain public interest in the disclosure of such information, that
interest is comparatively limited because any estimated spend by Christ Church on
such fees would be a matter of interest to a comparatively small section of the public.
On the other hand, there is a clear public interest in public authorities (as defined by
the Act) being able to conduct their affairs without significant prejudice. In this case,
I am satisfied the balance of public interest favours withholding the requested
information.

In addition, I consider that the exemptions set out at sections 41 and 43 of the Act also
apply. Fee information is subject to a duty of confidentiality which Christ Church
owes to any solicitors or barristers, whom it has chosen to instruct. Relatedly, but
separately, it is the commercial information of any such solicitors or barristers. We
have consulted with the relevant third parties and have received representations that it
would cause specific harm to the interests of any such solicitors or barristers for their
fee information to be made public, not least because it would undermine their
commercial position in relation to their competitors. It would also constitute a breach
of confidence. I have considered the balance of public interest and consider that it
weighs in favour of maintaining these two exemptions.

Finally, I consider the information is privileged and therefore exempt under section
42 of the Act. This is because the disclosure of fee estimates in relation to future
actions, would inevitably disclose something of Christ Church’s legal strategy in this
matter, which is information that is properly privileged. There is a strong public
interest in ensuring the fundamental principle of legal privilege is not undermined.

(iii) Christ Church cannot disclose the agreed or estimated fees payable to the
independent chair because, as explained above, these also relate to ongoing
proceedings and any such disclose would or would be likely to prejudice, the effective
conduct of public affairs. Disclosure of information about the costs involved in an
incomplete contentious process would significantly undermine Christ Church’s
position. Christ Church is therefore withholding this information under section
36(2)(c). Christ Church accepts that this is not an absolute exemption and it has
therefore weighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public
interest in the disclosure of this figure. As I have explained above, I accept that there is
an interest in this information, albeit from a relatively small section of the public. The
fact that information is interesting to certain members of the public does not mean
that its disclosure is in the public interest, whereas there is a clear public interest in
public authorities being able to conduct their affairs without encountering significant
prejudice. In this case, I am satisfied the balance of public interest favours
withholding this information.
In addition, also as explained above, I consider that the exemptions set out in sections
41 and 43 of the Act apply. Fee information is subject to a duty of confidentiality and
disclosure of such information would undermine the commercial position of the
barrister who has been instructed to conduct this role. To the extent that it is
applicable, I have considered the balance of public interest and consider that it weighs
in favour of maintaining these two exemptions.

Finally, I consider the information is the personal data of one, identifiable individual
and is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The independent chair would not
expect information about their fees to be released into the public domain because it
would breach the duty of confidentiality owed to them by Christ Church, as
explained above. The processing of personal data in a way that is unfair is in breach of
the data protection principles and disclosure is therefore exempt under section 40(2).
This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

I appreciate that this decision will be disappointing. If you are dissatisfied with the handling to
the request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted within two months of the date of receipt of this response and should be submitted to
the Censor Theologiae, Christ Church.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you have the right to apply directly
to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

yours sincerely,
James Lawrie, Treasurer
Direct Line: 01865 276177 · Fax: 01865 286333 · E-mail: james.lawrie@chch.ox.ac.uk
Registered Charity No: 1143423

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

I have just asked the ICO for an update , but when they acknowledged my request back in July , they said a case officer would not be appointed for 4-6 months due to their case load backlog.

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

I now have a letter from the ICO : and they have apointed a case officer who will write to ChCh asking them to justify their refusal under section 12.

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

Update fron ICO case officer 13th December:
I have received an unsatisfactory response from Christ Church, Oxford and have requested further information from them.I will not hear back from Christ Church, Oxford until the New Year and will update you again following their further response. Yours sincerely, Bethan Crook

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

I have now received a judgement fron the ICO. She refused my appeal and sided with ChCh's refusal. It was a long letter explaining that (according to Lawrie) it would take too long to sort thru all the invoices from all their PR and legal firms to separate out the Dean costs. Who knew the House had such a huge range of lagal matters on the go! . They say they will publish their decision , but I cannot see it here yet. https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.ht...
My case is IC-115246-Z5D0

Alan Fox left an annotation ()

Decision now posted here (as pdf)
https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.ht...