FS50220528: 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=FS50220528 | |dn_ref=FS50220528 | ||
|dn_date=27 | |dn_date=27 October 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=University of Oxford | |dn_pa=University of Oxford | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested from the public authority a copy of an initial review of a National Audit Office report on stroke care conducted by an academic member of its staff. The public authority initially relied on section 43(2) to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also sought to rely on section 36. The Commissioner has determined that it correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information and did not require the public authority to take any further action. However, he found that it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c) by failing to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50220528.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50220528.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 36 | |dnd_section=FOI 36 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:31, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50220528
- Date: 27 October 2009
- Public Authority: University of Oxford
- Summary: The complainant requested from the public authority a copy of an initial review of a National Audit Office report on stroke care conducted by an academic member of its staff. The public authority initially relied on section 43(2) to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also sought to rely on section 36. The Commissioner has determined that it correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information and did not require the public authority to take any further action. However, he found that it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c) by failing to state, by the time of the completion of the internal review, that it was relying on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and explain why it applied.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
