Internal Review on the response to a Freedom of Information request – IR/07 (FOI 368) – Mr Christopher James O’Neal

The request for an Internal Review was received on 27th October 2016September and the review was conducted on 21st November 2016

Background and the Review

On the 17th October 2016, the following request was received:

“I Make this request under the FOI Rules & Regulations

On the 18th March 2016, 4 of your officers from the trading standards department were carrying out an investigation / operation at Uxbridge Square, Menai Bridge in respect of taxi checks.

The four officers during the cause of the night have become known to individuals as trading standards officers therefore there should be no reason to withhold the answer to my question.

Can you therefore tell me by what means did the said officers travel to the location, Personal Car, Council Vehicle etc and the number of said vehicles.

For example

If the two females travelled in a personal car and the two males in a council owned vehicle then please state 1 x personal car & 1 x council owned vehicle.

If the answer to the above is 1 or more council vehicle then please supply the make, model, colour & registration number of the said vehicle.

I do not wish you to disclose details of any employee's personal cars however if the answer to the question above is 1 or more personal car then can you please confirm that the said employee's personal car had a class 1/2 Business use insurance policy in place at 23.00hrs on the 18th March 2016.

Please be aware that it is an offence to drive a vehicle on a public road without the correct insurance in place....

Also please note that although I write this with great expectations that I should receive a truthful answer, I am carrying out investigations into your department therefore understand your department will attempt to cover things up so I will at this point remind you that I have video footage of the said vehicles from a distance however cannot identify the registration plates so please bear it in mind for example, if you tell me it was a Blue Skoda and I have clear evidence it was not then I will report the matter to the public services ombudsman for wales.

I look forward to a truthful set of answers from a council that should be transparent”

A response was sent on 26.10.16 when it was stated that “all officers travelled to Menai Bridge in one council owned vehicle”.

The requestor responded on 27.10.16 stating that further information had been requested, i.e “the make, model, colour and registration of the said vehicle”.

On 27.10.16 a further response was sent and the section 31 Law Enforcement exemption was engaged.

The requestor then asked for an Internal Review and this was held on the 21st November 2016.

Consideration of the request and the response issued

The review set out that disclosures made under the Act are deemed to be made to the World at large. This precept is relevant given that the Council has relied on the exemption under Section 31FOIA. This exemption enables information, which if disclosed under the Act, would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, to be withheld.

I consider that the exemption was correctly engaged because it is clear that disclosure would be likely to cause prejudice to the law enforcement functions. I would, at this point, stress that the degree of prejudice is identified as being likely to, rather than would be caused.

Whilst I understand that the requestor does not agree with the withholding of the information, I am of the opinion that, given the circumstance, the exemption was correctly engaged.

I would also wish to reassure the requestor of my independence of mind in undertaking the Internal Review. My role is to ensure that the process set out in the legislation is correctly followed. It is important that this is done impartially, referring to legislation specific guidance and a considerable body of case law. The Internal Review is not intended to champion the rights of the requestor rather it is to ensure that the job was done right.

In this regard, I consider that the initial refusal notice ought to have included information on how to request an internal review, and thereafter, information on how to complain to the Information Commissioner. However, in all other respects, I consider that the refusal notice was correct.

Conclusion –Having duly considered the request and the responses, I am of the opinion that the request was responded to in a timely manner and the exemption was appropriately engaged.

Huw Pierce Pritchard

Corporate Information Governance Manager

21.11.16