Schedule of meetings of Sir Nigel Sheinwald (as Special Envoy)
Dear Cabinet Office,
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the schedule of meetings (participating organizations and disclosable individuals, dates, locations, names of fora) held by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, in his capacity as Special Envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-n...)
Yours faithfully,
Caspar Bowden
CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE: FOI320469
Dear CASPAR BOWDEN
Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received
on 5/1/2015 and is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.
If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
Yours sincerely,
Knowledge and Information Management Unit
Cabinet Office
E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]
Please find attached the reply to your recent FOI request
Regards
FOI Team
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
Email – [1][Cabinet Office request email]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]
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
Jonathan Baines left an annotation ()
[In response to a request for comments from the requester].
The public interest test undertaken under section 35(1)(a) is at best cursory, and the only factors considered to be in favour of disclosure are generic. I am sure there are more specific ones which both the requester and the Cabinet Office will be aware of.
Section 27(1)(a to d) are prejudice based exemptions, but the Cabinet Office do not explain how disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the relevant international relations - they assume it. The ICO expects authorities to follow the three-step prejudice tests described at paras 15 to 26 of the guidance at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio.... And again, the public interest test is cursory.
Section 23 is less easy to argue against by virtue of its drafting.
It's worth asking for an internal review.