M Boyce

mailto:


Tim Figures

Head of Aviation Security

Department for Transport

Zone 1/27

Great Minster House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

Web Site:

Our Ref: F0008019

16 September 2011

Dear M Boyce,

YOUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, REF F0008019

I refer to your request of 20 August, in which you requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Your request was as follows:

  • Is ManchesterAirport using compulsory body scanners as a more 'stringent' security measure or as part of a 30 month trial?
  • Is HeathrowAirport using compulsory body scanners as a more 'stringent' security measure or as part of a 30 month trial?
  • Is GatwickAirport using compulsory body scanners as a more 'stringent' security measure or as part of a 30 month trial?
  • Which of the following four options will you chose to 'deal' with this FOI request:
  1. Not bother to respond within the 20 working day limit?
  2. Not bother to respond to the original FOI request, and then not bother to respond to a further request for an internal review?
  3. Supply contradictory/inconsistent/inaccurate/misleading information?
  4. Refuse to disclose the information because you do not want to ('not in the public interest')?

I wonder which of these it might be this time?

We have considered your request and decided that it is vexatious and in accordance with the FOIA this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.

Section 14 of FOIA (vexatious or repeated requests) states:

(1)Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

(2)Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.

From February 2010 you have written to Ministers and officials of the DfT over 50 times on subject of security scanners. The content of the correspondence has verged towards being repetitive with correspondence focusing principally on the published security scanner FAQs published on the DfT website, the date of the publication of the consultation response to the “Interim Code of Practice for the acceptable use of Advanced Imaging Technology in an aviation security environment”, and what internal body parts a scanner may or may not detect. You have also repeatedly asked rhetorical questions that could be considered sarcastic, as you have in this FOI request.

On 7 October 2010 the Departmental Complaints Officer wrote to you and informed you that the Department would not respond to any further (non-FOIA) correspondence on the subject of security scanners. According to our records you have made, to date, 14 FOI requests (including over 20 different questions) since 29 June 2011 on the subject of security scanners and these are substantially similar to your earlier non FOI correspondence with the Department, to which you have previously received responses. Your requests have been responded to in so far as they have been valid requests for information under FOIA and you have requested 4 internal reviews to our responses so far.

The Department feels that we are not obliged to respond to your request. This is because the Department believes the request is vexatious as per Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Taken in conjunction with your other requests and the significant volume of other correspondence you have sent us on the subject of airport security scanners, your request:

  • can fairly be seen as obsessive;
  • has the effect of harassing the public authority;
  • imposes a significant burden in terms of distraction of staff from their usual work;
  • is designed to cause disruption or annoyance.

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that we are not obliged to respond to this FOI request because Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act applies. The Department will not be responding to further requests from you on the same subject.

If you are not content with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request, 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,

Tim Figures