FS50067279: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/67279 dn.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/67279 dn.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_section=FOI 31
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 38
|dnd_section=FOI 38
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:22, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50067279
  • Date: 2 August 2005
  • Public Authority: Hampshire Constabulary
  • Summary: The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with information about the number of offences detected at and the revenue generated by two fixed speed cameras on Mountbatten Way in Southampton. Hampshire Constabulary refused to provide the information citing FOI s.31 (Prejudice to Law Enforcement). In correspondence with the Commissioner, Hampshire Constabulary also cited FOI s.38 (Likely to Endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). While the Commissioner recognised that the release of the requested information would inform the debate about the purpose and efficacy of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in informing this debate outweighed the public interest in maintaining both exemptions. This is because he believes that there is a stronger public interest in avoiding both the likely increased risk to health and safety of any individual and the likely increase in non-compliance with road traffic laws. The Commissioner was also persuaded that the release of requested information would require the public authority to take countermeasures to negate the increased risks that have been identified and that these countermeasures would entail an increase in public expenditure. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: dn.pdf