FS50072320: 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=FS50072320 | |dn_ref=FS50072320 | ||
|dn_date=30 | |dn_date=30 January 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=BBC | |dn_pa=BBC | ||
|dn_summary= from one of those sets of minutes had been correctly withheld under section 40 of the Act. The other two documents were papers prepared for the first of those two meetings. The BBC took the view that both of these papers were covered by the derogation and therefore outside the terms of the Act: the Commissioner accepted that view. However, he criticised the BBC for breaching sections 10 and 17 of the Act by not informing the complainant, within the timescale specified, either that information was being withheld from the set of minutes or of the relevant exemption concerned. | |dn_summary=The complainant sought access to any documentation relating to the case of Dr David Kelly that had been considered by the BBC Board of Governors. The BBC identified four documents falling within the ambit of that request. Two of those documents were minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors, which were subsequently released to the complainant: the Commissioner considered that one sentence redacted from one of those sets of minutes had been correctly withheld under section 40 of the Act. The other two documents were papers prepared for the first of those two meetings. The BBC took the view that both of these papers were covered by the derogation and therefore outside the terms of the Act: the Commissioner accepted that view. However, he criticised the BBC for breaching sections 10 and 17 of the Act by not informing the complainant, within the timescale specified, either that information was being withheld from the set of minutes or of the relevant exemption concerned. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50072320.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50072320.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=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: FS50072320
- Date: 30 January 2008
- Public Authority: BBC
- Summary: The complainant sought access to any documentation relating to the case of Dr David Kelly that had been considered by the BBC Board of Governors. The BBC identified four documents falling within the ambit of that request. Two of those documents were minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors, which were subsequently released to the complainant: the Commissioner considered that one sentence redacted from one of those sets of minutes had been correctly withheld under section 40 of the Act. The other two documents were papers prepared for the first of those two meetings. The BBC took the view that both of these papers were covered by the derogation and therefore outside the terms of the Act: the Commissioner accepted that view. However, he criticised the BBC for breaching sections 10 and 17 of the Act by not informing the complainant, within the timescale specified, either that information was being withheld from the set of minutes or of the relevant exemption concerned.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
