Further correspondence with ICO regarding FS50307811
Dear University of Cambridge,
Please supply, in electronic form, to this e-mail address, copies of all correspondence between the University and the Information Commissioner's Office regarding ICO Case Reference Number FS50307811 since my request of 7 July 2010 [1]. In addition, please supply copies of any other documents relating to this matter held or created by the Unified Administrative Services of the University since my request of 7 July 2010 [1].
Yours faithfully,
Bruce Beckles
Dear Mr Beckles,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information. Your reference number is FOI-2010-188. We will respond on or before 25 October 2010.
Regards,
FOI Team
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge
CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]
Dear Mr Beckles,
Further to your request for information, please find attached the University's response.
Regards,
FOI Team
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge
CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]
Bruce Beckles left an annotation ()
The request which gave rise to ICO Case Reference Number FS50307811 can be viewed here (the public authority's reference for that request was FOI-2010-32):
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de...
Dear FOI,
Thank you for the information you have provided. With respect to the second part of my request (documents relating to ICO Case Reference Number FS50307811 being held or created by the University's central administration since 7 July 2010), please provide, in electronic form to this e-mail address:
(a) the number of documents which you have withheld,
(b) the date of each withheld document, and
(c) a brief summary of the purpose of each withheld document
I appreciate that (c) may turn out to be exempt information under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Beckles
Dear FOI,
On page 28 of the supplied 51-page PDF (FOI 2010 188 Beckles.pdf) containing the requested information, a large amount of text has been blacked out, particularly in (a) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 18:59 22 February 2010 and in (b) an e-mail from Dr Allen dated 17:34 22 February 2010.
On page 29 of the aforementioned PDF, some text in (c) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 17:27 22 February 2010 has also been blacked out.
In addition, on page 30 (of the aforementioned PDF) some text in (d) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 22 February 2010 15:43 has been blacked out.
(I assume all the blacked out text is information that has been redacted.) Please could you tell me under what Section(s) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the blacked out text in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above has been redacted?
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Beckles
Dear Mr Beckles
I write in response to your e-mail of 16.02 on 26th October.
The information which you requested in the second part of your request No FOI-2010-188 (documents relating to ICO Case Reference Number FS50307811 being held or created by the University's central administration since 7 July 2010 not included in the response to the first part of your request) falls into two categories:-
Category A
(a) an internal memo dated 7th July 2010 and
(b) a draft letter dated 21st July.
These comprise information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and which accordingly comprises exempt information under section 42 of the Act.
There is an important public interest in preserving the confidentiality of communications between a person and his/her lawyer, provided they are confidential and made for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice or assistance. Guidance issued by the Information Commissioner's Office indicates that the general public interest inherent in this exemption will always be strong due to the important of the principle behind the privilege. The University safeguards its ability to ensure openness in all its communication with its legal advisers in order to ensure access to full and frank advice. The University has not identified any equal or stronger countervailing consideration in relation to this matter to override that inherent interest. This is not a case involving large amounts of public money, nor are significant groups of people affected by the legal advice in question. Accordingly, the University does not consider that in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information and consequently the information in question has been withheld.
Category B
Documents relevant to ICO Complaint No FS50307811 held or created by the University's Central Administration in the period since 7th July - the documents listed below were attached to the internal memo dated 7th July referred to above. Because 7th July was used as the reference date for your two requests, I regret that, in error, neither that memo which was issued on 7th July itself, nor its attachments, were taken into account in either response.
The documents attached to the memo of 7th July which should have been disclosed as relevant to the complaint are as follows:-
(a) an excerpt from the FOI spreadsheet for the period in question.
(b) statistical information about response times
(c) An e-mail relating to the timings for ballots
(d) A list of further activities which the Freedom of Information Officer was engaged in during the relevant period
The information in documents (a) - (d) above includes personal data which comprise exempt information under section 40 (2) (personal information) of the Act on the ground that disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle. Such data have been redacted.
Yours sincerely
Kirsty Allen
Kirsty Allen, MA PhD
Head of Registrary's Office and Principal Assistant Registrary
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge
CB2 1TN
Email: [email address]
Telephone (direct dial): 01223 332323
Telephone (PA: Ms Molly Hughes): 01223 764142
Dear Mr Beckles,
I write in response to your e-mail of 16.28 on 26th October.
In each of cases (a) to (d) in your e-mail, the information is redacted because it represents personal data which comprise exempt information under section 40 (2) (personal information) of the Act on the ground that disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle.
Yours sincerely,
Kirsty Allen
Kirsty Allen, MA PhD
Head of Registrary's Office and Principal Assistant Registrary
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge
CB2 1TN
Email: [email address]
Telephone (direct dial): 01223 332323
Telephone (PA: Ms Molly Hughes): 01223 764142
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 'Further correspondence with ICO regarding FS50307811'.
I am asking that the University review the following redactions it made to the material supplied in the 51-page PDF file (FOI 2010 188 Beckles.pdf) [1] in its response of 22 October 2010 [2]:
(a) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 18:59 22 February 2010 (p. 28 of the aforementioned PDF file)
(b) an e-mail from Dr Allen dated 17:34 22 February 2010 (p. 28 of the aforementioned PDF file)
(c) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 17:27 22 February 2010 (p. 29 of the aforementioned PDF file)
(d) an e-mail to Dr Allen dated 15:43 22 February 2010 (p. 30 of the aforementioned PDF file)
These redactions were made because the redacted material was felt to be exempt under Section 40(2) (personal information) of The Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, given the nature of the e-mails in question it is difficult to see how the entirety of the text redacted could be exempt under Section 40(2). It seems likely that removing identifiers such as names or roles should mean the rest of the redacted text was no longer personal data and so should have been disclosed.
I obviously cannot be certain of this, since I haven't seen the redacted text in question, hence this request for the University to look again at this text and see whether, upon further consideration, it could disclose some of this text.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fu...
Yours faithfully,
Bruce Beckles
Dear Mr Beckles,
Your request for a review of our handling of FOI-2010-188 has been noted, and will be dealt with by the Administrative Secretary. You will receive a response on or before 21 December 2010.
Regards,
FOI Team
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[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
Bruce Beckles left an annotation ()
ICO Case Reference Number FS50307811 resulted in a Decision Notice, available here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...