FS50140994: 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=FS50140994 | |dn_ref=FS50140994 | ||
|dn_date=23 | |dn_date=23 October 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Staffordshire Police | |dn_pa=Staffordshire Police | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of any evidence, which had not already been passed to her, in connection with an alleged speeding offence. This request ultimately became confined to the provision of a video tape which would show the recording of her alleged offence and all other motorists or pedestrians captured on the same footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) was appropriately applied and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has not therefore considered the exemption at 40(2). The Commissioner also found that the public authority failed to respond to two earlier iterations of the request in breach of section 1(1). However he did not order any steps in relation to those requests as the decision notice deals with an identical request which was processed by the public authority under the Act. In relation to that request the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)(b). The latter breach was remedied at internal review and in view of the content of this decision notice the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in relation to the section 17 breaches. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50140994.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50140994.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 1(1) | |dnd_section=FOI 1(1) | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17(1)(b) | |dnd_section=FOI 17(1)(b) | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17(3)(b) | |dnd_section=FOI 17(3)(b) | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 30(1)(a)(i) | |dnd_section=FOI 30(1)(a)(i) | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:27, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50140994
- Date: 23 October 2008
- Public Authority: Staffordshire Police
- Summary: The complainant requested copies of any evidence, which had not already been passed to her, in connection with an alleged speeding offence. This request ultimately became confined to the provision of a video tape which would show the recording of her alleged offence and all other motorists or pedestrians captured on the same footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) was appropriately applied and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has not therefore considered the exemption at 40(2). The Commissioner also found that the public authority failed to respond to two earlier iterations of the request in breach of section 1(1). However he did not order any steps in relation to those requests as the decision notice deals with an identical request which was processed by the public authority under the Act. In relation to that request the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)(b). The latter breach was remedied at internal review and in view of the content of this decision notice the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in relation to the section 17 breaches.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
