Move to ’20-year-rule’ for secret papers will cost £52m – BBC News
“The Ministry of Justice says reducing the ’30-year rule’ for publishing secret government papers to 20 years will cost up to £52m.”
BBC News, 13th July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Ministry of Justice says reducing the ’30-year rule’ for publishing secret government papers to 20 years will cost up to £52m.”
BBC News, 13th July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Pressure from former senior Labour figures, including Tony Blair and Jack Straw, as well as Whitehall mandarins, to ‘turn back the clock’ on freedom of information legislation has been decisively rejected by an all-party group of MPs.”
The Guardian, 8th July 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Families bereaved by the Hillsborough tragedy have learned that they will get access to secret police and government documents within three months after a long campaign for the papers to be released.”
The Guardian, 20th June 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A local authority in London was ‘justified’ in not disclosing an email that recorded the ‘substance’ of a telephone conversation between a staff member and a third party because it would have been a breach of confidence to do so, an Information Rights Tribunal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Extracts of a phone conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush a few days before the invasion of Iraq must be disclosed, a tribunal has ruled.”
The Guardian, 21st May 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Blocking the publication of a report into the risks of NHS reforms is a sign that ministers want to downgrade freedom of information laws, a watchdog has warned.”
The Independent, 15th May 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The official assessment of the risks involved in the government’s NHS shakeup will never be published after the cabinet exercised its rare right of veto to keep it secret.”
The Guardian, 8th May 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Six public bodies were fined over personal data security breaches in the last year despite hundreds of reported cases, a report said today.”
The Independent, 25th April 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The names of three junior members of staff who had handled complaints made to the financial services regulator should have been disclosed as part of a freedom of information request as disclosure ‘did not adversely affect their privacy’, a tribunal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th April 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“In a recent post, Panopticon brought you, hot-off-the-press, the Tribunal’s decision in the much-publicised case involving publication, under Freedom of Information Law, of the NHS Risk Register. Somewhat less hot-off-the-press are my observations. This is a very important decision, both for its engagement with the legislative process and for its analysis of the public interest with respect to section 35(1)(a) of Freedom of Information Act 2000 (formulation or development of government policy) – particularly the ‘chilling effect’ argument. At the outset, it is important to be clear about what was being requested and when.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th April 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Today was one of striking parallels between the USA and the UK in terms of litigation concerned with access to information.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th April 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Seven firearms, about 50 replica guns and nearly 3,000 knives have been confiscated in courts in the east of England over the past three years, the BBC can reveal.”
BBC News, 9th April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The public interest in publishing a risk assessment of the NHS overhaul in England is ‘very high, if not exceptional’, a tribunal has ruled.”
BBC News, 5th April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Public bodies can safely ignore requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for their plans to deal with zombie invasions. Graham Smith, deputy information commissioner, told the Solicitors in Local Government annual weekend school last week that ‘silly and daft’ requests would be covered by existing guidance on vexatious requests.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 5th April 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“Councils should be prepared to disclose the names of senior staff members involved in recruiting senior councillors or officials as well as details of the role they played in that recruitment, an Information Rights Tribunal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th April 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“The education secretary, Michael Gove, is challenging a ruling by the information commissioner that he used a private email account for departmental business.”
The Guardian, 29th March 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“MPs’ expenses receipts should not be shown to the public, Westminster’s new standards watchdog has ruled.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th March 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was not engaged in a case in which the Charity Commission had refused to comply with a journalist’s request that he be supplied with certain information, by applying an absolute exemption which was said to derive from section 32(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 20th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Tangled web, this one, but an important one. Many will remember George Galloway’s Mariam Appeal launched in response to sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1998, and the famous picture of GG with Saddam Hussein. Well, the Appeal was then inquired into by the Charity Commission, and this case concerns an attempt by a journalist, unsuccessful so far, to get hold of the documents which the Inquiry saw. But the Commission took the 5th amendment – or rather, in UK terms, a provision in the Freedom of Information Act (s.32(2))which exempted from disclosure any document placed in the custody of or created by an inquiry. Cue Article 10 ECHR, and in particular the bits which include the freedom to receive information.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The body of jurisprudence relating to freedom of information has continued to develop apace over the last year. The exponential growth in appeals being heard by both the first-tier and upper tribunals has meant that practitioners are having to work ever harder to keep abreast of changes to both the substantive law and practice and procedure.1 Rather than attempt a comprehensive review, this paper aims merely to address some of the more important developments in this area over the past year.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 16th March 2012
Source: www.11kbw.com