PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Under section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 investigations and proceedings by public authorities are exempt from FOI requests.

​

Click to expand...

.Section 30(1) exempts documents that contain opinion, advice or recommendation, or consultation or deliberation, where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. A document is not exempt simply because it is an internal working document.

I was suggesting the foi request would be to ascertain if there was any such recommendation received against City for consideration.

Could that be likely considered contrary to public interest?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
.Section 30(1) exempts documents that contain opinion, advice or recommendation, or consultation or deliberation, where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. A document is not exempt simply because it is an internal working document.

I was suggesting the foi request would be to ascertain if there was any such recommendation received against City for consideration.

Could that be likely considered contrary to public interest?
Click to expand...
The public interest is ultimately a subjective test applied by the public authority that is subject to the FOI request and I’d be amazed if they didn’t apply that exemption to any investigation, given how widely the subsection is framed.

Firstly, any meaningful document will be covered by those five actions, two of which, consultation and deliberation, could be said to cover pretty much any investigatory document, and in any event you’ve identified a recommendatory document, so plainly in that list.

Secondly, the public interest test is frequently applied subjectively by public authorities when making decisions, and as a subjective test it is very hard to challenge.

To do so successfully (once you had exhausted their internal complaints procedure and possibly any ombudsman, neither of which would bear any fruit) would be to (promptly) apply to Judicially Review the public authority’s decision to the High Court. Given the decision is plainly within their lawful powers the only possible cause of action would be that the decision was Wednesbury Unreasonable, that is to say that no reasonable public authority acting reasonably would have acted the same way; in other words the decision was irrational.

It’s an extremely high bar and I’d be amazed if an application got past the permission stage. You’d have to demonstrate that the decision was against the public interest, which would need to be considered against wider public policy considerations, including the overarching need to keep such investigations out of the public domain at certain points in the process.

Not worth the time, money and emotional energy in my view. The statute is plainly framed to exclude criminal investigations as the default position, and with good reason in my view. Any public authority is afforded wide discretion when applying this exemption, and this discretion would, except in the most extreme of circumstances, be upheld by the court.
 
Last edited:
117 M34 said:
Maybe that arsenal fan from twitter was right and we haven't put up any defence to the charges and that's why it's ending early.
Click to expand...
Do you really think a high class legal team would go to a hearing without ANY defence? Absolute nonsense, not a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top