FS50169737: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50169737 | |dn_ref=FS50169737 | ||
|dn_date=24/06/2009 | |dn_date=24/06/2009 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50169737
- Date: 24/06/2009
- Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
- Summary: The complainant requested information regarding the arrest of a named individual including their suspected involvement in a mugging. The Metropolitan Police Service refused to confirm or deny that this information was held, citing the exemptions at sections 40(5) (Personal Information), 30(3) (Investigations and Proceedings), 31(3) (Law Enforcement) and 44(2) (Prohibitions on Disclosure). While the Commissioner has found that the Metropolitan Police Service did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the procedural requirements in sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(b) of the Act, he finds that section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. He has not therefore gone on to consider the other exemptions cited. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
