FS50242843: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50242843 | |dn_ref=FS50242843 | ||
|dn_date=24 | |dn_date=24 August 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Judicial Appointments Commission | |dn_pa=Judicial Appointments Commission | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information about different attributes of applicants who had applied for the Recordership contest in a specific geographic area and how far they had progressed in that process. He asked nine questions that would provide breakdowns including the numbers of applicants by ethnic group. The public authority applied section 22(1) in relation to a number of the questions and section 40(2) in relation to others. The information that was withheld under section 22(1) was published before the Commissioner commenced his investigation and was not considered in this case. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 40(2) to the outstanding information and has determined that the public authority was correct in its application in this case. He did however find procedural breaches of sections 10(1) and 17(1). He requires no remedial steps to be taken. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information about different attributes of applicants who had applied for the Recordership contest in a specific geographic area and how far they had progressed in that process. He asked nine questions that would provide breakdowns including the numbers of applicants by ethnic group. The public authority applied section 22(1) in relation to a number of the questions and section 40(2) in relation to others. The information that was withheld under section 22(1) was published before the Commissioner commenced his investigation and was not considered in this case. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 40(2) to the outstanding information and has determined that the public authority was correct in its application in this case. He did however find procedural breaches of sections 10(1) and 17(1). He requires no remedial steps to be taken. | ||
| 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 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:39, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50242843
- Date: 24 August 2009
- Public Authority: Judicial Appointments Commission
- Summary: The complainant requested information about different attributes of applicants who had applied for the Recordership contest in a specific geographic area and how far they had progressed in that process. He asked nine questions that would provide breakdowns including the numbers of applicants by ethnic group. The public authority applied section 22(1) in relation to a number of the questions and section 40(2) in relation to others. The information that was withheld under section 22(1) was published before the Commissioner commenced his investigation and was not considered in this case. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 40(2) to the outstanding information and has determined that the public authority was correct in its application in this case. He did however find procedural breaches of sections 10(1) and 17(1). He requires no remedial 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
