FS50225088: 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=FS50225088 | |dn_ref=FS50225088 | ||
|dn_date=31 | |dn_date=31 March 2010 | ||
|dn_pa=Ministry of Justice | |dn_pa=Ministry of Justice | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information relating to Lord | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information relating to Lord Falconer’s interpretation of the 1949 Marriage Act and the Human Rights Act at the time of the impending marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request but that it was exempt by virtue of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The public authority also neither confirmed nor denied whether it held any information relating to the provision of Law Officers’ advice, citing section 35(3). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions are engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, the Ministry of Justice breached a procedural requirement of the Act. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225088.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50225088.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 35 | |dnd_section=FOI 35 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 42 | |dnd_section=FOI 42 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:19, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50225088
- Date: 31 March 2010
- Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
- Summary: The complainant requested information relating to Lord Falconer’s interpretation of the 1949 Marriage Act and the Human Rights Act at the time of the impending marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request but that it was exempt by virtue of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The public authority also neither confirmed nor denied whether it held any information relating to the provision of Law Officers’ advice, citing section 35(3). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions are engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, the Ministry of Justice breached a procedural requirement of the Act.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3
