FS50202116: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
 
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50202116
|dn_ref=FS50202116
|dn_date=14/12/2009
|dn_date=14 December 2009
|dn_pa=HM Treasury
|dn_pa=HM Treasury
|dn_summary=The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury for a copy of the �Sandstorm Report� (the report) which was submitted to the Bank of England by Price Waterhouse in 1991. The report addressed allegations of fraudulent activities committed by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In responding to the request HM Treasury noted that a significant portion of the report was available on the internet and it therefore considered these parts of the report to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 21 of the Act (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). Although the Treasury provided the complainant with some of the parts of the report which were not available on the internet, it argued that the remaining sections were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) and section 27(1)(a) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that HM Treasury was correct to rely on these three exemptions to withhold the remainder of the report although in handling this request it breached a number of procedural requirements of the Act.
|dn_summary=The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury for a copy of the ‘Sandstorm Report’ (the report) which was submitted to the Bank of England by Price Waterhouse in 1991. The report addressed allegations of fraudulent activities committed by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In responding to the request HM Treasury noted that a significant portion of the report was available on the internet and it therefore considered these parts of the report to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 21 of the Act (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). Although the Treasury provided the complainant with some of the parts of the report which were not available on the internet, it argued that the remaining sections were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) and section 27(1)(a) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that HM Treasury was correct to rely on these three exemptions to withhold the remainder of the report although in handling this request it breached a number of procedural requirements of the Act.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50202116.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50202116.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|2=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 21
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 27
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 23:38, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50202116
  • Date: 14 December 2009
  • Public Authority: HM Treasury
  • Summary: The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury for a copy of the ‘Sandstorm Report’ (the report) which was submitted to the Bank of England by Price Waterhouse in 1991. The report addressed allegations of fraudulent activities committed by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In responding to the request HM Treasury noted that a significant portion of the report was available on the internet and it therefore considered these parts of the report to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 21 of the Act (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). Although the Treasury provided the complainant with some of the parts of the report which were not available on the internet, it argued that the remaining sections were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) and section 27(1)(a) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that HM Treasury was correct to rely on these three exemptions to withhold the remainder of the report although in handling this request it breached a number of procedural requirements of the Act.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=FS50202116&oldid=17012"