Procedures of the Court of Discipline in 2012

[Name Removed] made this Freedom of Information request to University of Cambridge This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear University of Cambridge,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting that you describe the information held by the University in relation to the case heard by the University's Court of Discipline on 14 March 2012. Specifically, please describe:

1.) Any documents submitted to the Court in connection with this case;

2.) any other information relating to the case created by, or in the possession of, the University Advocate;

3.) any other information relating either to the case or to the complaint(s) to the University Advocate which gave rise to the charges in this case, that were created by, or are in the possession of, those who made the complaint(s);

4.) any records of the trial, including any records of deliberations and decisions of the Court, as well as any documents containing any reasons for those decisions;

5.) any official statements made by the University about this case or the complaint(s) which gave rise to it;

6.) any letters, e-mails, inquiries, or other forms of correspondence about this case which were sent to any of the following: the University Advocate; the Vice-Chancellor; the University Council; those who made the complaint(s) to the University Advocate; the organiser of the event at which the protest (which gave rise to the complaint(s)) occured. Also list any responses issued by or on behalf of those named individuals and authorities to the correspondence so described.

If it is estimated that the work necessary to comply with this request would exceed the appropriate limit, then please exclude item (6) above. If it is still estimated that the work necessary would exceed the appropriate limit, please exclude item (5) as well.

Note that I am requesting you describe the information held by the University and its officers, not that you supply original documents to me. I do not require a detailed description of each item, but would ask that you annotate your list indicating which items identify specific individuals; however, please note that I am not requesting that such annotations include any personal data which you are not allowed to disclose under the Act.

Please send all communication to this email address.

Yours faithfully,

Dr [Name Removed]

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information. Your reference number is FOI-2012-85. We will respond on or before 27 April 2012.

Regards,
FOI Team

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: [University of Cambridge request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,

Further to your request for information, please find attached the University’s response.

Regards,
FOI Team

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: [University of Cambridge request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Dr Knapton,

thank you for your response. I have a few questions about it.

I accept the University's view that part (6) of my request would have been too expensive to grant. However, I would be curious to know how this was calculated. Is it the case that any request for all letters and emails relating to a particular subject would be deemed too expensive? Also, would it have been possible to provide *some* of this data - for example by placing a limit on the time-frame that had to be searched so as to come up short of the cost limit?

The answer to part (3) of my request is prefaced with this remark: 'Please note that this list does not repeat items already listed in answer to your earlier request, FOI-2012-64'. Among the items then listed is this:

'Email correspondence with a member of the public and the Office of External Affairs and Communications concerning the case.'

However, I note that in your response to my request FOI-2012-64 you list

'Email correspondence with various individuals (not Officers of the University) about actions that the Proctors planned to take following the protest'.

Can you confirm that the first item I mention is not included in this item listed earlier in FOI-2012-64? I ask for clarification on this point because if the same individual or office had email communication with the Proctor on more than one occasion about the protest and/or the case, then potentially those communications would be covered by the item in FOI-2012-64 that I cite above. If there is indeed some sort of overlap, could you confirm that this has not happened with any of the other items, and that you are certain items excluded from your answer to part (3) of the present request really were listed properly in your response to FOI-2012-64?

Finally, I asked as part of my request 'that you annotate your list indicating which items identify specific individuals', except where that would infringe on the University's duties under the DPA 1998 and other laws. However, your response does not seem to come with any such annotation. Please provide the relevant annotations.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,

I refer to your email dated 29 April 2012.

The estimate was not based on any general assumptions but was formulated with regard to the precise scope of your request and in particular the number of correspondents specified in your request numbered 6.

Your request explicitly instructed the University to "exclude item (6)" if it was estimated that the work necessary to comply with your request would exceed the appropriate limit, and accordingly I do not propose to enter into correspondence with you as to whether it would have been possible to comply with your request within the appropriate limit by providing some of the information described in your request numbered 6.

I confirm the accuracy of the prefacing remark to which you refer and, in particular, that email correspondence between a member of the public and the Office of External Affairs and Communications concerning the case was not included in any of the classes of information listed in the response to your request FOI-2012-64.

Although annotations "indicating which items identify specific individuals" were supplied in answer to your request FOI-2012-64, it is not accepted that the Act requires a public authority to compile a list of documents which is annotated in this way. For that reason, an annotated list was not provided to you on this occasion.

Yours sincerely,

James Knapton
Information Compliance Officer
Registrary’s Office
University of Cambridge
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge CB2 1TN

show quoted sections

Dear University of Cambridge,

RE. FOI-2012-85

I am sorry to have to challenge your refusal to annotate the list of documents held by the University, a refusal which contradicts not only the letter but the spirit of the law.

According to Section 1 (1a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (hereafter 'the Act'), I am entitled 'to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request'. The duty of the University in this regard is defined by Section 1(6) of the Act as the duty 'to confirm or deny'. My request specifies that I want to know whether the University holds documents which (1) relate to the subject specified elsewhere in the request, and (2) name or otherwise identify specific individuals (such as students). Within the context of this request, the University has a duty to confirm or deny that it holds such documents, which here materializes as the duty to annotate the documents in such a way as to indicate which documents name or identify individuals.

Furthermore, Section 11(1) of the Act requires, so far as is reasonably practical, that the University give effect to any preference I express for a digest or summary of the requested information. Clearly the annotated list I have requested is such a digest or summary of the information (i.e. "the documents held by the university that match criteria (1) an (2) listed above").

Indeed, of the various ways I could have requested such information be presented, such annotation must be the least verbose form, so not only do I believe that it is reasonably practical for the University to provide such a list, but I also do not believe that this part of my application can be interpreted as an attempt to cause deliberate inconvenience.

In addition to this objection under Sections 1 and 11 of the Act, I would refer the University to its duty under Section 16, which requires that public authorities 'provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so'. I think it entirely reasonable for me to expect on this basis that the University supply the appropriate annotations.

I would also note, in connection with this argument under Section 16, that the University's response to my enquiry about the costing analysis - on the basis of which part (6) of my request was refused - does not seem to me to be in the spirit of assistance demanded by Section 16. Although I would not normally be inclined to see the sense in mentioning this or pursuing it further, I believe that taken together with the refusal to supply annotations this underlines the University's neglect of its Section 16 duties on this occasion.

I am therefore requesting an internal review of the University's decision not to provide the said annotations.

Please find a full history of this FOI request, and all correspondence pertaining to it, at this web address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for a review of our handling of request number FOI-2012-85. We will respond on or before 26 July 2012.

Regards,
FOI Team

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: [University of Cambridge request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

2 Attachments

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,

Further to your request for a review, please find attached two letters which together constitute the University’s response.

Regards,
FOI Team

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: [University of Cambridge request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Dr. Allen,

thank you for your reply. Thanks also to the FOI compliance officers for their work in making the necessary annotations.

Dr Allen, although you reject all the arguments I made for the University's legal obligation so provide such annotations, you supply no reasonable grounds for rejecting them. Consequently, I must continue to believe that my request was perfectly valid. I reserve the right to make any future requests in a similar manner. The University is free to reject such requests if it has legal grounds to do so.

In your reply, you write the following:

'Your requests in this vein have consistently been followed by new requests asking for copies of various items from the lists. While noting your rights under the Act, I wish to highlight the fact that routinely making requests in this elaborate manner is burdensome and involves a disproportionate amount of administrative time and resource.'

This statement seems to demand a response from me. Although I have sometimes used the information provided by one request in order to be more specific in another, I fail to see how this kind of common sense might be considered reprehensible. I must say that if the University believes such requests are 'vexatious' as defined by section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which seems to be the implication of what you write, it is free to reject them provided it is reasonable and legal to do so.

Indeed, although they might be considered 'elaborate' (depending on how one defines that), I dispute the fact that such requests were especially 'burdensome'. On the contrary, in being able to refer very specifically to documents held by the University, I feel I have made it easier for its officers to interpret and respond to my requests. Indeed, several of my requests have conscientiously made provision for the possibility of their becoming 'burdensome', and the University has reduced the scope of their response
as appropriate.

Nevertheless, I do understand that my application for an internal review in this instance might have been burdensome, because in order to supply the annotations to me the University will have needed to look up and review the various bits of information it had listed in its initial response. But it is my interpretation - and please correct me if this is wrong - that the University simply forgot to make the annotations in the first instance, and, instead of performing the burdensome task of going back over the material it had identified, simply refused, unreasonably, to supply the annotations at all. Even if this is not the case, and of course I know it might not be, the refusal to supply these annotations was legally incorrect, as I have argued in a previous statement. I surely cannot be held accountable for any extra burden that resulted from the University's mishandling of the initial request.

Naturally, I understand that annotating such a list would likely be an arduous process if the list contained unusually long or complex documents. I would not have requested annotations had I suspected that the relevant documents were long or especially complex, which in the event they were not. I continue to be sensitive to the work brought about by different kinds of request, and I believe that this sensitivity is reflected in those I have made: for this reason, I would very much like to hear about the specific ways the University feels my requests have caused 'a disproportionate amount of administrative time and resource'. To have these specific examples would be very helpful given that your letter addresses not only this specific request and the review arising from it, but all the requests I have made to the University, including, it seems to me, requests that I have not yet conceived. To reiterate: it is not my intention to cause the University compliance officers undue amounts of work, and none of my requests or follow-up queries have been designed to cause undue consternation.

Finally, as you know, the law does not require me to explain how requesting annotations serves a 'purpose'. Whether the University believes such annotations serve a purpose or not has no bearing on its obligation to supply such information. Nevertheless, I believe that in this instance the value of such annotations would be fairly transparent to anyone acquainted with the particular controversies attached to this case and the University's handling of it.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,

Further to your email of 28 September 2012, please find attached a letter of today's date from Dr Allen.

Regards,
FOI Team

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: [University of Cambridge request email]

show quoted sections