Important FOI briefing session announced

The extraordinary Campaign for Freedom of Information, to whose coattails all FOI supporters hang, have announced a briefing session on 18 February to discuss the continuing threats to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). As they point out, particular areas of concern are

The government is planning to amend the Freedom of Information Act to make it easier for authorities to refuse requests on costs grounds. This could have serious implications for requesters…
The government is also proposing to allow unrelated requests from one person or group of people to the same authority to be refused if their number is overly burdensome…Local newspapers, which cover a range of different issues involving the same authority, could be among the first casualties of this proposal…
Ministers are also considering introducing charges for appealing to the Information Rights Tribunal – a measure likely to discourage many appeals from being made.
saveFOI members will be attending, and we also intend to continue to support the Campaign in its defence of FOIA, for as long as it takes.

9 thoughts on “Important FOI briefing session announced


    I am deeply concerned at a recent decision by the Upper Tribunal (UT) whom,have overturned an earlier FTT non -vexatious decision.
    I am one of 3 test cases heard in London,two on the 14th Nov12 and one on the 14th Dec12.

    It would appear the ICO and the UT are throwing the kitchen sink to protect VEXATIOUS decisions which are handed out on a whim by Public Authorities.
    In my particular case the ICO (appellant) claimed history and context of 11 FOIA request from me between Feb 05 and May 10,however, they did not produce these GHOST FOIA requests.
    It would appear to me there is a V cosy relationship between the ICO and many PA’s nationwide backed up by the UT.
    Ironically, the FOIA 2000 was brought into statute to improve Transparency,Accountability and Security of PA’s.
    TAS at the ICO and UT is clearly NOT seen to be working.

    • savefoi2012 says:

      Hi Alan

      Thanks for your comment. We’re interested to read the Upper Tribunal’s decision on the three “vexatiousness” cases, but as far as we know they haven’t been published yet. Clearly therefore it’s difficult to comment. However, the question of where the balance lies in this sort of case is vitally important for requesters and public authorities, and it’s also an important issue for how FOI is perceived in general.

      We may blog on the cases when the judgments have been published, so you might want to look out for that.


    All 3 Test Cases have now been published and my case was LEAD TEST CASE.
    I am convinced that the ICO & UT are complicit in a wider conspiracy to enable PA’s to uphold vexatious decision given on a whim.

    The ICC and their Barrister argued in my case that I had a history of vexatious requests between Feb 05 and May 10 involving 13 FOIA requests. However, they failed to produce these FOIA requests which I maintain are ghost documents.How can the ICO win case when they DON’T have the documented evidence at the hearing. The ICO also failed to meet a court order to provide these ghost documents in which they have relied upon to make the appeal.
    Strikes me the UT and ICO and PA’s are cahoots to PROTECT WHIMSICAL VEXATIOUS DECISIONS


    Have you had a chance to read the Upper tribunal decision yet which I maintain is unsafe.
    The UT gave the ICO a green light based on 13 Ghost Documents.
    I am now intending to take this case to the Court of Appeal.In the meantime I have a 3 rd retrial of a FTT hearing involving the ICO and DCC and 6 PFI school which I claim are unfit for purpose.

    No wonder the ICO and the DCC threw the kitchen sink at the GIA /3037/2011 case because they can rely on that case to continue their whimsical Vexatious decisions.


    Two recent ICO decisions which are causing controversy are Alan M Dransfield FOIA requests to the Met Office and the Olympic Stadium. Both were initially refused on National Security grounds by the respective PA’s. The ICO overturned the Met Office decision and ordered the ODA to release the soughtafter data. The ICO have upheld the ODA. decision

    It beggars belief that Lightning Protection System data would affect National Security??


    I have recently received a copy of Judge Wikeley notes on GIA3037/2011,which they admitted the audi tape recorder was NOT working at the UT Hearing last Nov and they didn’t discover that until several weeks after Judge Wikeley made his final DN??!!
    Ghost documents,ghost bridges and now Ghost Tape recorder???
    Transparency,accountability and security is NOT seen to be working at the UT office or at the UT Presidents Office.


    I am currently running a petition to save the FOIA 2000 at the 38degrees website,hence,I would appreciate any support signatures please.


    I was under the impression that the ICO was an independent authority,hence, why did he take on the role of he appellant in my infamous UT case GIA/3037 /2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO&DCC


    The Court of Appeal have rejected my application to appeal the Upper Tribunal on case ref GIA/3037/2011 on grounds of “Out of Time”.
    Quel Surprise surprise.
    Needless to say,I have appealed that decision because it is HOGWASH, I am well inside the 21 day period.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: