FS50064584: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50064584 | |dn_ref=FS50064584 | ||
|dn_date=22 | |dn_date=22 August 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Thames Valley Police | |dn_pa=Thames Valley Police | ||
|dn_summary=. Section 31 and 38 are subject to the public interest test and the Commissioner also agreed that the public interest required the maintenance of these exemptions. | |dn_summary=The complainant asked Thames Valley Police for the numbers of sex offender orders applied for and granted since April 2003, for details of the applications for orders to the courts and for the reason why some hearings had been moved from the Banbury Area. The requests was initially refused on the basis of the exemptions provided by section 31 (law enforcement), section 38 (health and safety) and section 40 (personal information.) The TVP also initially misunderstood the request to be for orders granted rather than orders applied for. As a result of the Commissioner’s intervention, the TVP supplied information as to the number of order applied for and granted on a Force-area basis. However, the Commissioner agreed that, insofar as the requested information would allow the identification of particular offenders, it was exempt by virtue of the exemptions cited. Section 31 and 38 are subject to the public interest test and the Commissioner also agreed that the public interest required the maintenance of these exemptions. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/dn_fs50064584.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/dn_fs50064584.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 31 | |dnd_section=FOI 31 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 38 | |dnd_section=FOI 38 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:21, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50064584
- Date: 22 August 2006
- Public Authority: Thames Valley Police
- Summary: The complainant asked Thames Valley Police for the numbers of sex offender orders applied for and granted since April 2003, for details of the applications for orders to the courts and for the reason why some hearings had been moved from the Banbury Area. The requests was initially refused on the basis of the exemptions provided by section 31 (law enforcement), section 38 (health and safety) and section 40 (personal information.) The TVP also initially misunderstood the request to be for orders granted rather than orders applied for. As a result of the Commissioner’s intervention, the TVP supplied information as to the number of order applied for and granted on a Force-area basis. However, the Commissioner agreed that, insofar as the requested information would allow the identification of particular offenders, it was exempt by virtue of the exemptions cited. Section 31 and 38 are subject to the public interest test and the Commissioner also agreed that the public interest required the maintenance of these exemptions.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
