BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[TheGadgetMan]

The Treasury are refusing to release the documents they hold on s58, under Freedom of Information, on the grounds that they claim it would not be in the public interest.

So how about if a whole load of us requested these documents?

Would anyone else be willing to submit an FOI request using this (scroll down to form at bottom)? You need to register on the site.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/new/19

I am happy to coordinate this by providing a different wording of the request to everyone so we don't get any identical requests.

I can't promise it will work but nothing ventured...

Done.

[silver_lining]

Check out this new thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

DR, can you or someone please give me the legal definition in this context for 'public interest'..... there must be a formal definition otherwise one or the other side can endlessly cite this?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just imagine you are in the FOI department of HM Treasury and you came into work this morning to find this waiting for you:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hm_treasury

This is in the public domain so there is nowhere for them to hide.

I have changed the wording for the next batch:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/920275-post1.html

Keep 'em coming.

[SantaClaus]

Request sent.

Keep them coming guys and girls!

[orientalist]

Just imagine you are in the FOI department of HM Treasury and you came into work this morning to find this waiting for you:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hm_treasury

This is in the public domain so there is nowhere for them to hide.

I have changed the wording for the next batch:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/920275-post1.html

Keep 'em coming.

Very good, With respect to the naming of civil servants involved and the rather bland response from HMRC, why don't you ask for a copy of the submission to the minister setting out the options available. This is the paper that would go to the minister outlining pros, cons and legal opinion taken. Should identify the individual you are after.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

History of this FOI Request

Some of you may have received an email from me about this but I thought I'd share this with everyone. I know of one other person who is also being jerked around in exactly the same way by HMT.

16th April
On 16th April I submitted a Freedom of Information request to HM Treasury asking them to publish all documents they hold on BN66/section 58. They are supposed to respond within 20 working days but they dragged their heels and didn't respond for almost 2 months.

11th June
Their response when it finally came was that it would not be in the public interest to release the information.

16th June
On 16th June I requested an Internal Review. This is a necessary step before you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. As soon as the JCHR report was published, I submitted this to the review panel as evidence of why it would be in the public interest to release the info, citing the alleged breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European convention on Human Rights.

Once again, the Treasury dragged their heels. The Information Commissioner has issued guidance that public bodies must complete internal reviews within 40 working days.

18th August
It is now 45 working days since I requested the review, so today I sent them a reminder.

Something smells
Clearly something fishy is going on. In their response of 11th June they seemed confident of their right to withhold the information. So why does it take 45 days to review this? Could it be that they are not so confident about their position after all, or are they just stalling for time and for what possible purpose?

Time to up the ante
It is in response to the above, that I have suggested that as many of us as possible should request the same information. See here for details:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Overrride the Protocol

DR,

As you rightly express, the IC guidelines require reviews to be completed within 40 days in the most extreme cases and this has clearly not been the case.

Given this, I would consider that special dispensation on the part of the IC is warrented to override the protocol and for them to fast track this breach of compliance due to the gravitas of the issue under review on the FOI request.

Therefore, unless an immediate (and warrented response) is received then the IC should be informed of breach of their guidelines. This is expressed due not least to the potential Human Rights concerns at stake.

This is not the same as a request for the IC to investigate or form a tribunal but rather to ensure that their guidelines are being adhered to and hence their need to consider protocol and fast tracking this complaint.

As we keep hearing from "authority" - Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. IC need to persue this breach and enforce their guidelines.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

History of this FOI request

DR,

I'm going to contact the IC tomorrow about this and ask if they are able to look into this breach and raise it to those to whom the FOI was directed if you receive no response in the next 7 days. I will do so on the basis of breach of their guidelines (No. 5) and due to the gravitas of the FOI in question and potential HR impact.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR,

I'm going to contact the IC tomorrow about this and ask if they are able to look into this breach and raise it to those to whom the FOI was directed if you receive no response in the next 7 days. I will do so on the basis of breach of their guidelines (No. 5) and due to the gravitas of the FOI in question and potential HR impact.

Thanks.

The only thing that worries me about the IC is I keep hearing stories that they are swamped and there are backlogs of up to a year. However, perhaps a breach of the time guidelines is treated differently than a refusal to provide information.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

A good citizen

Thanks.

The only thing that worries me about the IC is I keep hearing stories that they are swamped and there are backlogs of up to a year. However, perhaps a breach of the time guidelines is treated differently than a refusal to provide information.

Yep.

Not asking for them to fast track an inquiry or form a tribunal. Rather, just let them know that a JCHR orientated request concerning Human Rights has taken longer than their mandated number of days to respond to a review. Just helping the authorities by keeping them informed as to when their guidelines are being flouted.

I like to be a good citizen and uphold the law and all.