e xemption briefing s - pdp journals · 2013-04-09 · akes into acc ant did not i r its staff, it...
Post on 16-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Exe This b V
o M
a1
F
Ca
This sectiothe C
ecutive S
briefing summ
Vexatious oobliged to co
Manifestly uauthorities m10(4)(c) justi
Frivolous oCommissioneapplication w
briefing is ion. Please
Commission
Summa
marises the S
or repeatedomply with r
unreasonabmay refuse refies refusal w
or vexatiouser under FO
which, in the
intended to remembener’s concl
E
ary
Scottish Infor
d requests equests for i
ble or geneequests for ewhere reque
s applicatioOISA and the
Commission
o provide gr that all reusions on a
xemp
rmation Com
– section 1information t
eral requestenvironmentasts are form
ons – sectioEIRs – gives
ner’s opinion
general guidequests fora particular
ption
mmissioner’s
4(1) and 14that are vex
ts – regulatal informatio
mulated in too
on 49(1) FOs the Commin, is frivolous
dance on thr informatior matter w
Brie
Vexati
s (the Comm
4(2) FOISAatious or rep
tions 10(4)on that are mo general a m
OISA: applieissioner the s or vexatiou
he interpreon must be
will depend o
efing S
ous or
missioner’s) g
A: Scottish ppeated.
(b) and (c) manifestly unrmanner.
s to applicatdiscretion nous
tation and e considereon the circ
Series
Repea
general appro
public author
EIRs: Scotreasonable, w
tions made toot to reach a
applicationed on a casecumstances
s
ated Re
oach to:
rities are not
ttish public while regulat
o the a decision on
n of the rele by case bas of that cas
equests
t
tion
n an
evant asis - se.
Intr Theseexercprovidon thethe au Publicmake authounrea
Vex Part Sectiocomply See A Part Therewell-ebackg Essentinterpand macknoreason Thererequeevalua(which
• • • • •
This issuppo
roductio
e provisions aise their righde a way of de financial anuthority.
c authorities a genuine inrity’s resoursonable.
xatious
1: What d
on 14(1) of Fy with a requ
Appendix for
2: Interpr
e is no definitestablished inround, in or
tially, sectionpreted in themust not be uowledged then to refuse t
e is no single est is vexatioation and reah may be the
it would imit does noit is designit has the it would odispropor
s not an exhorted by evid
on
aim to protehts to informdealing with nd human res
should not uformation re
rces, but thes
request
does the la
FOISA states est for inform
full text.
retation
tion of ‘vexan law and opder that the
n 14(1) is co context of t
used to undee damage whto deal with
formula or us, and eachasoning. Thee latest in a s
mpose a signot have a serned to causeeffect of har
otherwise, inrtionate.
austive list: ddence), other
ect the credimation respon
the few applsources of p
use these proequest. Reqse factors ar
ts – sect
aw say?
that the genmation if the re
atious’ in FOted to give tinterpretatio
ncerned witthe importanermine that rhich may be da request if t
definitive set request mue Commissioseries of req
nificant burdeious purpose
e disruption orassing the p the opinion
depending onr factors may
bility and effnsibly, but thlications thatublic authori
ovisions lightuests may be
re not on the
tion 14(
neral right ofequest is vexa
ISA. The Scothe Commisson might evo
h the effect once of the rigright. In recodone to the the requeste
t of criteria tst be consid
oner consideuests or oth
en on the pue or value; or annoyancublic authori of a reasona
n the circumy be relevant
fectiveness ohere are raret are manifesities or are d
tly. Applicane inconvenieeir own suffi
(1) FOIS
f access to inatious”.
ottish Parliamsioner latitudolve over tim
of the requeght of accessognising thatright by its d
er’s actions a
that enable aered on the
ers the followher related co
ublic authorit
e to the pubity; able person,
mstances (andt.
of freedom ofe occasions wstly unreasondeemed to b
nts must notent, and meeticient to dee
SA
nformation “
ment acknowde to interprme in light of
est on the aus to informatt a request mdisproportionare not justif
a totally formmerits of th
wing factors torresponden
ty;
blic authority
be consider
d provided th
f informationwhen this is nable, would e vexatious
be unjustly ting them ma
em a request
does not oblig
wledged thatret that termf experience
thority and ition conferre
may be vexatinate use. A ied when tak
mulaic approae case, suppto be relevannce) is vexati
y;
red to be ma
he impact on
n laws. Mostnot the case
d impose a sigbecause of o
denied the oay at times st vexatious o
ge a Scottish
t the term ‘vm in accordan
and precede
its staff. It shed by sectiontious, Parliamkey issue is
ken in contex
ach to deterported by evint to a findinious:
anifestly unre
n the author
t applicants e. These provgnificant burother impact
opportunity tstretch an or manifestly
public author
exatious’ wance with thisent.
hould be n 1(1) of FO
ment has whether thext.
rmining whetidence and cng that a req
easonable or
ity can be
2
visions rden ts on
to
rity to
as s
ISA
ere is
ther a lear uest
r
Reso ParliamTuesd01/j10 Tuesd02/j10 Part Is a r This s14(1)
• • •
Signif A reqamoustatutdutiescore f Generof thethe ke If the applicExces In botCommScotti(whichrepresshouldmatte
urces:
mentary debaday 30 Octob01-2902.htm
day 12 Febru02-0502.htm
3: Applyin
request ve
section sets oi.e.:
how to dewhat to tawhat proc14(1).
ficant burd
uest will impnt of time, aory functions under FOI functions are
rally, the aute organisationey functions
expense invation of sectsive Cost of
th Decision missioner wash Governmh was small asented a signd expect to rr of the requ
ates – Justice ber 2001 (Co
ary 2002 (C
ng section
exatious?
out consider
etermine whake into accocesses you n
den
pose a ‘signifnd the diver
ns. This shoulegislation. I
e of a higher
thority shouln most immeand/or tasks
volved in deation 12 of FOf Compliance
078/2012 aas not persua
ment. The Mand extremenificant burdereceive a conuests, she fo
1 Committee:ol 2740-2742
ol 3207-321
n 14(1)
rations when
hether a requount in detereed to follow
ficant burdenrsion of an unuld include dIf the public priority than
d consider tediately affecs from which
aling with a rOISA (excesse’ (details at t
and Decisioaded by arguinisters argu
ely busy). Gien. The Comnsiderable nund it unsur
: 2) - www.sco
2)- www.sco
n dealing with
uest is vexatirmining whetw if you dete
n’ on a publicnreasonable emonstratinauthority don the statuto
he impact ofcted. It shouh resources w
request is thesive cost of cthe end of th
on 173/2012uments relatied that Mr Riven their brmmissioner tumber of reqprising that s
ottish.parliam
ottish.parliam
h a request w
ious; ther a requeermine that t
c authority wproportion
ng why thoseoes not perfoory requirem
f the requestuld also be abwould requir
e only considcompliance).his section) f
2 Mr Daviding to the peRule’s requesroad and unfotook the viequests and pso many of t
ment.uk/busi
ment.uk/busin
where there
est is vexatiothere are gro
where dealingof its financia
e other statutorm statutor
ment to respo
t on its wholble to quantire to be dive
deration invo See the Co
for guidance
d Rule and terceived impasts were “taocused natur
ew that the Fprepare itselfthem were d
ness/commit
ness/commit
may be grou
ous; ounds for ref
g with it woual and humantory function
ry functions, ond to inform
le resourcesify the impac
erted to deal
olved, the auommissioner’
on the appli
the Scottisact of requergeted” at thre, the MinistFirst Ministerf for that eveirected at th
ttees/histori
ttees/historic
unds for refu
efusing a requ
uld require an resources,ns take priorit should demation reque
s, rather thanct of the req with it.
uthority shour’s briefing onication of se
h Ministerssts on a parthe First Ministers believedr’s Office, byentuality. Gihe First Minis
c/justice1/or
c/justice1/or-
usal under se
uest under se
a disproporti away from ority over statmonstrate wests.
n simply that uest and iden
uld consider n ‘Fees and ction 12.
s, the ticular part oster’s Office d the requesy its nature, ven the subjster’s Office.
3
r-
-
ection
ection
ionate other tutory
why its
part ntify
the
of the
sts
ect .
The r Publicpurpoto obtpublicseriouCommpublic In Dereque In an ecommautomrandowhethwholly
The r This isrequeappliccannointentito accapplicwas thguidan In Deregulanot alconsidcause The r This tapplicand/olanguainappr
request lac
c authorities ose or value, tain the inforc authority. Tus purpose omissioner wic authority to
ecision 078/est lacked any
earlier decismon charactematically folloom list of 19 her the contey disproport
request is d
s not a concester’ below)ant to state
ot, in the whoion in makingcess the inforant’s intentiohe applicant’nce on this p
ecision 020/ation 10(4)(bways accuratder it reasondisruption o
request has
takes into accant did not ir its staff, it mage and toneropriate lang
cks serious
should not rthe applican
rmation. ThThe inclusio
or value that ll accept thato provide ro
/2012 Mr Dy serious pu
ion (245/201eristic of relaowed they shpublic figureent of the retionate to an
designed to
lusion an aut and the reawhy they waole circumstg a request. rmation thaton where hes intention f
point see disc
/2011 Mr Gb) of the EIRstely (for exa
nable to interor annoyance
s the effect
count the effntend to caumay be deem
e of a requestguage’ below
purpose or
reach this cont might fromhe applicant in of this critthey can ont some casesbust reasons
David Rule arpose or val
11) the Comating to peophared anythines. There haequest was suny purpose se
o cause disr
thority shouasons for it aant informatiances of the If the intenti
t is the subjee/she has madrom prior kncussion unde
Garry Caldes), the Commample, in conrpret this, in e.
t of harassin
ffect a requesuse inconvenmed vexatiout may be rele
w).
r value
onclusion lighm a subjectives not obligederion simplyly be seen ass have no sers, supported
and the Scoue.
missioner acple in the pubng more in cd to be a pouch that the erved.
ruption or a
ld reach lightre a matter fion. Howevcase, be dis
ion is evidenct of the reqde it explicitnowledge of,er ‘request n
er and East missioner accnsistently mis
the context
ng the pub
st has on a pnience or expus when conevant in asse
htly. Even if e and reasond to share hiy recognises s vexatious. rious purpos by relevant
ottish Minis
ccepted that blic eye. Hocommon. In oint at which
demands pla
annoyance
tly. Strictly for the appli
ver, there areregarded. F
ntly to cause quest, the ret. It may be p, and docum
not requester
Lothian Cocepted that ts-spelling thet of the com
lic authorit
ublic authorpense, if the sidered from
essing this (fo
a public authnable point ois/her motivethat some reWhat the fo
se or value, bevidence.
sters the Co
the individuowever, in th
summary, thit was reaso
aced on its t
e
speaking, a rcant. Neithee occasions wor that reasodisruption oquest may b
possible for aented interar’ below).
ouncil (conthe applicant
e name of a pmunications
ty
ity regardlesrequest has
m the perspeor further gu
hority thinks of view have es for seekinequests may ollowing decibut only whe
ommissioner
als identifiedis case she d
he Ministers onable for thime and reso
request is apper FOISA nowhere the inon, this factoor annoyancee vexatious. a public authactions with,
sidered furtht expressed particular Cohe had seen
s of the applthe effect of
ective of a reuidance see d
that a requea genuine de
ng the informbe so obvioision demonen appropria
r accepted th
d in the requdid not accephad been pre authority tources in de
plicant blind or the EIRs rntention behior considers e to the auth It will be eaority to demthe applican
her below, ahimself stronouncil officern, as indicatin
licant’s intenf harassing th
easonable perdiscussion un
est lacks seriesire and/or
mation with tously lacking strates is tha
ate. It is for
hat Mr Rule’s
est shared thpt that it resented withto ask itself aling with it
(see ‘Requeequire the ind a requestthe applican
hority, ratherasiest to gaug
monstrate thant (for furthe
s a decision ngly, and perr). He did nong an intentio
ntions. Even he public autrson. The nder ‘abusive
4
ious need
the in at the the
s
he
h a
was
est not
t nt’s r than ge an at this
er
under rhaps ot on to
if an thority
e or
In DeComm The aperiodnot lisdissatinvestexhau It wasto extany cl In Deconclu For ciKane The r RegarvexatiThe eRelevaresouabovethe retransp Vexa Therethey dreach Requ The te It is norequeapplicthey m Howecould deeme
ecision 133/missioner acc
uthority hadds had expirestened to theisfied with. Ttigations whicusted.
s reasonable tend the dialoser by resp
ecision 013/usion was re
rcumstancese and Scott
request is m
rdless of the ious if, in theffect on a puant factors torces that wo
e on ‘significaequest, beariparency in pu
atious requ
e are a numbdo not make their conclu
uest not req
erm ‘vexatio
ot the identiest made in liant has beenmay have sub
ever, an applireasonably ced vexatious
/2012 Mr Acepted that t
d repeatedly ed and the fie advice it gaThe authoritch had been
to concludeogue about t
ponding to th
/2013 Clydeeached in rela
s in which thish Water,
manifestly u
apparent pue opinion of ublic authorito consider inould be requant burden’). ng in mind thublic authorit
uests – ge
ber of generarequests ve
usions about
quester
ous’ must be
ity of the appight of the sun deemed vebmitted othe
icant’s identiconclude thas in another
A and the Cthe applicant
explained toiles in questiave. Underlyty explained concluded s
from the evthose long-sthe requests.
e Marine Seation to a pa
he Commissioconsidered
unreasonab
rpose or vala reasonablety of dealing nclude the coired to proc Balanced ag
hat FOISA aties.
neral prin
al principles txatious/manthe factors a
applied to th
plicant that durrounding cxatious in an
er (unrelated
ity, and the hat a particulacontext, and
hief Constat’s pattern of
o Mr A that iton had beenying the requthat the info
some years e
vidence provtanding conc
ervices Limattern of per
oner did notfurther belo
ble or dispr
ue of a reque person, it wwith the reqomplexity ofess it, and thgainst these nd the EIRs a
ciples
that apply toifestly unreaas set out ab
he request, N
determines wcircumstancenother conted) requests th
history of thear request red so refuse th
able of Dumf behaviour h
t no longer hn destroyed. uest were hisormation souearlier, and t
vided by the cerns. It app
mited and Srsistent reque
t accept a haow in the con
roportiona
uest, or the inwould appeaquest will bef the requesthe impact onfactors shouare designed
o all considerasonable in thbove.
NOT the req
whether a rees. A requesext, for instahat were vex
eir dealings wepresents thehe request a
mfries and had the effec
held the info The authorstoric investught would nthat all avenu
authority thapeared highly
Strathclydeests submitte
arassing effecntext of regu
ate
ntention of tr to be mani
e relevant in t, the volumen the authoriuld be the wid to give acce
rations abouthemselves, th
uester.
equest is vexast cannot be nce if he/shexatious.
with a publice continuatioas being vexa
Galloway Cct of harassin
ormation he wity was able igations by t
not change thues in relatio
at the requey unlikely tha
Partnershed over a co
ct, see Decisulation 10(4)
the applicantfestly unreasdetermining e of informatty’s statutorder value aness to inform
t whether a hey may have
atious, but thjudged vexat
e has made a
c authority, mon of a patteratious. This m
Constabulang the public
was asking foto demonst
the authorityhe outcomes
on to them ha
ests were beiat resolution
hip for Tranonsiderably s
sion 012/20(b) of the EI
t, a request msonable or dwhether thi
tion requestry and/or cornd (where knmation and to
request is veve a bearing o
he nature antious simply
another com
may be relevarn of behaviomay arise, fo
ary, the authority.
or. Retentiorate that Mr
y which Mr As of the ad been
ng used primwould be br
nsport, a simhorter perio
012 Mr TomRs.
may be deemisproportionis is the caseted, the time re operationnown) purpoo promote
exatious. Won how auth
nd effect of thbecause an plaint or bec
ant. An authour which it
or example,
5
on A had
A was
marily rought
milar od.
mmy
med nate. e.
and ns (see ose of
While orities
he
cause
hority has
wherean extobses Campshouldtake inwell fothe rebe casobtain This dgiven proce The re
a
b
A useanothvexati In Decircumdialognothin The aLaw Sthere closerprolonthe ap The p Wheractioninconsrequeauthoautho
e an applicantended campsive.
paigning in fud not deal wnto account ounded or helevant authoses in which n information
doesn’t meanreasons to h
esses have be
equest may b
a) there is disclose
b) it is unlisubject procedu
ful test is forer person, uious.
ecision 145/mstances for gue about hisng more cou
uthority wasSociety of Scowas nothing
r by providinnging yet furpplicant did n
public auth
re an authorins may have sistent respo
ests, for clarifrity’s actionsrity has met
nt has an on-gpaign, for exa
rtherance ofwith a campaig
could includas no reason
orities; or thait is reasonan, for examp
n that an apphelp them uneen followed
be vexatious
no additioned; or ikely that thein question hure).
r the public aunknown to t
/2012 Mr B the Council
s complaints.uld be added.
s able to demotland, and vg more it coung a responserther correspnot require t
hority’s acti
ity intends tocontributed
onses to prevfication. Thes helped proits duties un
going grievanample to exp
f legitimate cgn as potent
de, for exampnable prospeat he/she ref
able to conclple on the ba
plicant’s requnderstand the.
s if it is the c
al informatio
e additional ihas already b
authority to the authority
and Aberdl to conclude. These wer.
monstrate thvarious Ombuld do on thee to the requpondence onthe informati
ions
o take accouto the situatvious requese Commissio
otract dealingnder section
nce against apose wrongd
concerns is atially vexatiouple, evidenceect of succesfuses to consude that the
asis of their p
uests for infoe conclusion
ase that:
on that can b
information wbeen thoroug
consider why. If it would
deenshire Ce that FOISAre about mat
at the applicbudsmen andese issues anuest. The Con matters whion to pursu
unt of prior dtion. For inssts for informoner is unlikegs between a15 (see belo
a public authodoing, to the
appropriate aus lightly, ore (from the hs; that the resider any alte
e applicant’s pprevious dea
ormation shons reached by
be provided b
would shed ghly address
hether the ind, this might
Council, theA was being utters the Cou
cant had exhad Commissiond it appeareommissionehich had beee his intentio
dealings withstance, whermation, this mely to concluauthority andow on sectio
ority, or coupoint that h
activity in a dr simply becahistory of theequester hasernative poinpurpose is tolings with th
ould be refusy an authorit
because all r
light on, or ased through t
nformation wsuggest that
e Commissioused by the auncil believe
austed the cooners. The Ced unlikely thr accepted thn addressed on of submit
h an applicantre an authorimight have leude that an ad applicant, eon 15: the du
uld reasonablhis/her behav
democratic sause it is a cae matter) thas failed to taknt of view ono pursue an ae authority.
ed automaticty, and to be
relevant infor
alter, the appthe relevant
would be supt the request
oner found thapplicant primd had been a
omplaints prCouncil had ihat their resohat respondiexhaustively
tting a new c
t, it should cty has provid
ed to the appapplicant shoespecially if thuty to provid
ly be describviour can be
society, and pampaign. Coat the campake his/her con the matterargument an
cally; the appe assured tha
rmation has
plicant’s situacomplaints o
pplied if it wet should not
hat it was reamarily to coaddressed fu
rocess with tinformed himolution wouling would hay. She was acomplaint to
consider wheded partial, aplicant makin
ould be penalhere is no ev
de advice and
bed as condudescribed as
public authoronsiderationsaign is eitheroncerns up wr. There maynd not really
plicant shoulat proper
already been
ation (becauor appeals
ere requestedbe treated a
asonable in tntinue extenlly and on w
the Council, m in 2004 thald be broughave the effectalso satisfied the Council
ether its ownambiguous, ong further ised if the puvidence that d assistance).
6
ucting s
rities s to r not with y also to
d be
n
se the
d by as
the nded
which
the at
ht any t of that .
n or
ublic the
.
Serie Wherconsidwill noreason If the authomay b
• 06
Maunodeonstau
• 12Cw AasmTimin
Abus The ulanguawhethtowar • 08
la TGAagauww
es of reques
re a request dered collectot necessarilnably be exp
number of rrity could re
be vexatious.
62/2005 MaMacbrayne Luthorities, wot be vexatioeciding whetn the public taff capable outhorities an
28/2007 Doommissione
which would b
ll 4,895 requs being vexat
manually and phe Commiss
mposed, colleformation o
sive or inap
se of abusiveage a reasonaher a requestrds a request
80/2005 Mrnguage used
his case concrampian Hodvocate. Thgainst individutomatically
was expressedwanted.
sts or large
is the latest tively when ay mean any
pected to ma
requests madeasonably be Decisions w
acroberts aLtd – This chich both mous, but thatther each waauthorities a
of dealing witd that the re
omhnall Car ruled that be a disprop
uests for infotious, explainprocessing tsioner’s rulinectively, a disn a separate
ppropriate l
e or inapproable person t meets the t being deem
r David Em by the appli
cerned a requsing Associ
he public autuals. The Cmean that itd was both i
e numbers o
in a series, oassessing theof those reqake numerou
de by one reexpected to
where the C
and the Scocase concernaintained we
t in this case as vexatious. and were math them, andequests colle
amshron anall but two oortionate inc
ormation relaning that onlyhem would p
ng took note sproportiona topic that w
language
opriate languawould consicriteria spec
med vexatiou
mslie and thicant were in
quest for infoation, Aberdhority deemommissione
t will be vexanappropriate
of requests
or where a lae burden theuests are ve
us requests t
quester, at to deal with thCommissione
ottish Execued 720 requ
ere vexatiousrequests fro The issue w
anifestly unre the Commi
ectively were
nd James Wof the 4,895 convenience
ated to lunchy two staff mplace a signifof the volum
ate inconvenwould not im
age will not, der abusive
cified above. s in the follo
e Scottish nappropriate
ormation reladeen City Coed the requer noted that atious, but ine and made i
s
arge numberey impose onexatious. Ceto the author
the same timhem in acco
er has consid
utive and 0uests made bs. The Com
om the same was whethereasonable. Tissioner conce vexatious.
Watt Collegrequests wo
e and expens
h expenses amembers couficant burdenme and subjenience and exmpose a signif
in itself, makor inapprop The Comm
owing case:
Executive e, and that th
ating to comouncil, the Dest vexatioust the use of an this case thit almost imp
r of requestsn the public aertain kinds ority.
me or in closerdance with
dered large n
063/2005 My one applica
mmissioner coapplicant co
r the 720 reqThe specialistcluded this w
ge of Furtheould, collective.
and other mauld deal withn on the admect matter inxpense. Theficant burden
ke a request riate in the c
missioner foun
- The Commhe request w
mmunicationsDepartment fs, noting thatabusive langue language u
possible to w
are submittauthority, buof requester,
e succession,the requiremumbers of re
acroberts aant on the saoncluded thaould be consiquests wouldt subject matwould impose
er & Highevely, involve
atters. The cthem, and t
ministration a accepting th
e other two rn on the auth
for informatcircumstancend that inapp
missioner agras vexatious
s between thfor Work ant it included
uage in an infsed and the
work out wha
ted at once, tut a large num in particular
, is so great tments of FOequests inclu
and Caledoame day to tat each requeidered collec
d impose a sitter limited te a significan
er Educatioa diversion
college refusthat the recoand operatiohe majority orequests wehority.
tion vexatioues may be a fpropriate lan
reed that thes.
he (then) Justd Pensions aunsubstantia
formation remanner in wat informatio
they can be mber of requr, might
that no publISA, the requde:
onian two public est alone woctively whengnificant burthe number nt burden on
on. The of resources
sed the requords were hens of the colof the requere for
us. Howevefactor in decnguage contr
e allegations
tice Ministerand the Lordated allegatio
equest will nowhich the reqon the applic
7
uests
ic uests
ould
rden of the
s
ests eld llege. sts
r, ciding ributed
and
r, d ons ot quest cant
The d There(see Ashoulddepenactionassistavexati Deal Once this ef
•
• Wherand to If the for rethe apthe Cgood for a d
Decis
A dectheir rtaken decisiodecisioevidensignific Good If a puused tapplic
duty to pro
e is a duty onAppendix ford be consultend on the cirns. If an authance with refious.
ing with v
an authorityffect to the a
a notice hCommissiJames Milliin the circ
re a notice iso apply to th
authority review itself) i
pplicant of thommissionerpractice to edecision in tw
a) where b) where
sion-makin
cision to deeright to requat an appropon-making pon. If it comnce and souncant burden
d practice
ublic authoritto determineants that an
ovide reaso
n an authoritr full text). Ifed to help th
rcumstances hority has takfining the req
vexatious r
y has decidedapplicant wit
has already bioner’s view igan and Glascumstances,
s issued, it me Commissio
ceives a reqs vexatious.
his, again withr if he/she reexplain, as fawo cases:
he/she has rno such not
g and reco
m a request uest a reviewpriately senio
process, i.e. wmes to an invnd reasoningwould be in
ty receives ae if a requestobjective me
onable advic
ty under sectf processing hem refine thof each caseken reasonabquest, and th
requests
d there are gthin 20 work
een given in is that this w
sgow City Couit would be
ust include doner if he/sh
uest for revi If the publichin 20 workemains dissatar as possible
eceived one ice has been
rd-keeping
vexatious ww, and ultimaor level, andwhy the requvestigation byg, with quantvolved.
a high proport is vexatiousethod of ass
ce and assis
tion 15 of FOa request is
heir request e, but the Coble steps to he applicant
grounds for rking days unle
relation to awould need tuncil); and unreasonable
details of thehe remains di
ew, it does nc authority ding days. Thtisfied, and oe, the reason
of the notic issued.
g
will often be ctely to makeafter carefu
uest was judgy the Commification of th
rtion of vexas. This will hessment is u
stance
OISA to provlikely to impin order to
ommissionerexplain the d(without goo
refusing a reess:
a previous idto be a notic
e to expect
e applicant’s issatisfied aft
not have to cdecides not this notice muof the furtherns for this de
ces mentione
contentious, e an applicatiul thought. Itged to be vexissioner, shehe impact of
atious requeshelp staff memused.
vide reasonapose a signifimake it morwould expe
difficulties invod cause) re
equest under
dentical or suce under sect
it to serve a
right to ask ter that.
comply if theto carry out ust include der right of appcision. An a
ed above, and
and it is quition to the Ct is also impoxatious, and
e will expect f the request
sts, it may bembers faced
able advice ancant burden re manageabect to see evivolved in profuses to refin
section 14(
ubstantially stion 14(1) –
nother notic
the public au
e original reqa review it metails of the peal to the Capplicant can
d is dissatisfie
te likely thatommissionerortant to keehow the pubsuch decisio
t where the a
e worth pubwith making
nd assistance on an authole. How thisidence of theocessing a rene their requ
1), it must is
similar requesee Decision
ce.
uthority to r
quest (or indmust issue a applicant’s r
Court of Sessn apply to th
ed with this;
t the applicanr. Such deciep records dblic authorit
ons to be bacauthority is a
blishing the cg the decision
e to applicanority, an appls is done wile authority’sequest and ouest, it may b
ssue a notice
st. The 191/0212 M
review its dec
deed the reqnotice inform
right to applysion. It is alse Commissio
or
nt will exercsions should
documenting y came to thcked by detaarguing that
riteria whichns and also s
8
nts licant l
s offered be
to
Mr
cision
uest ming y to so oner
ise d be
the his ailed a
h are show
Reso CommThe fuCommdecisio CommScottiwww. Other Freedwww. ScottiInformhttp:// Other HM Chttp://http://princiDransf Rep Part Sectioinformthere hreques See A Part Is a r It shorequeattem
urces:
missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (
missioner’s Guish Informati.itspublickno
Resources: om of Inform.hmso.gov.uk
sh Ministersmation (Scotl/www.scotla
jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judiciaples include field [2012] U
peated r
1: What d
on 14(2) of Fmation, it is nohas been a rest”.
Appendix at t
2: Applyin
request re
uld be relativest, but it is apt to define
cisions: of the Com
website. To v(e.g. 0xx/200
idance: on Commisswledge.info/
mation (Feesk/legislation/s
’ Code of Prland) Act 20nd.gov.uk/Re
bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/mRigby v IC EAUKUT 440 (A
requests
does the la
FOISA states ot obliged to ceasonable per
the end for fu
ng section
epeated?
vely straightfa judgment ca “reasonab
mmissioner’s view a decisi0x) in the ‘Se
sioner’s ‘FeeLaw/FOISA-
s for Requirescotland/ssi2
ractice on th002 and the Eesource/Doc
ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal
A/2009/0103AAC).
s – sect
aw say?
that “where comply with a riod of time b
ull text.
n 14(2)
forward to eall whether a
ble period of
decisions, inon, go to ww
earch’ bar.
s and ExcessEIRsGuidanc
ed Disclosure2004/200404
e Discharge Environmentc/933/010942
of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o; Lee v IC EA
ion 14(2
a Scottish pu subsequent retween the m
establish whea reasonabletime” in the
cluding thosww.itspublick
sive Cost of ce/Fees/Fees
e) (Scotland)467.htm
of Functionstal Informatio25.pdf
rmation Rightspx and Upp
osccs-decisio/2012/0015,
2) FOIS
ublic authorityrequest from
making of the
ether a reque period of tie legislation,
e referencedknowledge.in
ComplianceOverview.as
) Regulations
s by Scottishon (Scotland)
ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns Decision 0049 and 0
SA
y has compliedthat person w request comp
est is identicme has elapsbecause it w
d above, can nfo/decisions
’ Guidance - sp
s 2004 (the F
Public Auth) Regulations
(Administrats which are 085, and (in
d with a requwhich is identiplied with and
cal or substansed between
will depend on
be viewed os and enter t
Fees Regulat
horities undes 2004
tive Appeals particularly
the Upper Tr
uest from a peical or substad the making
ntially similarn requests. Tn the circum
on the the relevant
ions)
er the Freedo
Chamber) helpful on geribunal) IC v
erson for ntially similar of the subseq
r to a previoThere is no
mstances.
9
om of
eneral,
unless quent
ous
Consielapse
i) Ha It is immatteterms14(2). If thenew/‘reasojustifi
Whercircumand reAlternalread ii) Ha It is alreque
ab
If the lead toPublicmust Pro-a If a puthe in Com SectiorequePublic
dering the foed:
i) Has theii) Have th
s the inform
mportant to r or precise
s as earlier re.
e informationadditional inonable perioied within sh
re a request mstances havefusing the renatively, checdy received.
ave the circ
lso essential est, which me
a) the risk b) whethe
circumstanco a different
c authorities be able to de
active rele
ublic authoritformation th
mplying wit
on 14(2) is diest; for instanc authorities
ollowing two
e informationhe circumsta
mation cha
consider thewording. A
equests. Thi
n captured byformation, a
od of time’ hahorter interv
captures botve not changequest insofack with the a
cumstances
to consider ean that a fre
k of substantir the public
es have chant outcome, thshould not uemonstrate t
ease
ty is receivinhrough its pu
th repeate
iscretionary, nce, where tshould give
o questions w
n changed? ances change
anged?
e actual informApplicants oftis does not a
y the new realteration to as elapsed. Rvals than req
th new infored – see beloar as it relateapplicant, wh
s changed?
whether theesh decision
ial prejudice interest lies
nged since thhe Commissuse this sectithat the rele
ng repeated rublication sch
ed request
not mandathe applicant due weight t
will help pub
d?
mation captuten submit mautomatically
equest is diffeexisting infoRepeat requuests relating
rmation and iow), there ises to the oldho may clarify
e circumstanon the new
arising fromin withholdin
he applicant’sioner is likelion to unjust
evant conditio
requests for heme.
ts
ory. Even if has lost or f
to such repre
lic authoritie
red by a reqmore than ony mean the r
ferent to theormation – thests for infog to a comp
information s no difficultyd informationfy that they d
nces have chaone is warra
m disclosure; ng or disclos
s last requesy to concludtifiably restrions apply.
particular in
f this section failed to retaesentations w
es to assess w
quest at the tne request oequests will
informationhe Commissirmation thatleted or stat
considered iy in giving fren on the basidid not inten
anged since tanted. The p
and sing the infor
t, and a freshde that a ‘react an applica
nformation, it
applies, it main the informwhere they a
whether a re
time it is recn a subject, pbe ‘repeated
n captured byioner is likelyt is routinelytic process.
in relation toesh consideris that the red to capture
the decision passage of tim
rmation.
h look at theasonable perant’s rights to
t should con
might still be rmation, but tare made.
easonable pe
eived, and npossibly evend’ for the pu
y the earlier y to conclud
y updated are
o an earlier rration to theequest is, in e information
was taken ome may affec
e informationriod of time’ o access info
nsider pro-ac
reasonable tthen realised
eriod of time
ot just the sun in the samerpose of sec
request – i.ede that a e likely to be
request (and new informpart, repeaten they have
on a previousct:
n or issues mhas elapsed.
ormation. Th
ctively publish
to comply wid they still ne
10
e has
ubject e
ction
e.
e
the ation, ed.
s
might
hey
hing
ith the eed it.
Deal The pAuthovexatiPreviosectioCounc ResoParliamTuesdwww. Part • 15
Cm DagCsinTsc
• 09Bere
MreunpaMcoha
• 19
re
Manhaauna
ing with r
process for dorities shouldious and repous notice unon 14(2) will cil).
urces: mentary debday 12 Febru.scottish.parl
3: Section
59/2007 Mrouncil’s conc
made in June 2
Documents hagencies, and wommissionence the first he applicant cope of the a
98/2011 Mrenson’s requesponded to
Mr Benson argequested, witniversities’ darticular info
Mr Benson didonclude that ad dealt with
91/2012 Mrequest was r
Mr Milligan’s tnd sought thead not challeuthority had ature and no
repeated r
dealing with rd note that teated requender sectiononly apply to
bate – Justiceary 2002 (Cliament.uk/bu
n 14(2) in
r Campbellclusion that 2005.
ad been creawhich shouldr was also corequest, durhad made cl
applicant’s re
r Ian Bensouests were idin full.
gued that thth the resultisclosures in
ormation heldd not challenthe previou
h Mr Benson
r James Milepeated. Sh
two requestse same infor
enged the Cofailed to pro
othing had ch
requests
repeated reqthe Commisssts, whereve 14(1) will oo subsequen
e 1 Committol 3207-321usiness/comm
practice: r
l Martin anMr Martin’s
ated after thed have been oncerned tharing which tilear that he wequest should
on and Glasdentical and t
e Universityt (in his viewn response tod by the Uninge the previs response d’s previous r
lligan and Ge did not acc
s related to trmation relatouncil’s previovide the infohanged betwe
quests is the sioner has noer previous nonly apply to t repeated o
ee – 2) mittees/histo
relevant d
d North AyJune 2007 re
e first requeconsidered at the Councme the Couwas only seed have been
sgow Caledthat the info
’s response t) that sectioo similar reqversity had cious decisiondid not comprequest in ful
Glasgow Cicept that a y
the same penting to signagious decisionormation reqeen the two
same as withot interpretenotice has besubsequent
ones (see De
oric/justice1/
decisions
yrshire Couequest was i
est, which invfor disclosurcil deemed tncil had corr
eking copies clarified bef
donian Univormation req
to his previon 14(2) couluests demonchanged. Thn within FOIply with his rll, even if info
ity Council year between
nalty charge ge and facilitin. Consequequested. Threquests ap
h vexatious red section 16een given undvexatious recision 191/02
/or-02/j102-0
uncil - The dentical or s
volved differere in responsthe request ‘responded wof correspon
fore deeming
versity - Thuested had n
ous request hd not apply.
nstrated thathe CommissSA time limitrequest. In aormation ha
- The Comn this and a p
notice issueies for the pently, the Coe informatioart from the
requests, and6(5) as beingder either suequests, whil212 Mr James
0502.htm
Commissionsubstantially
ent Governmse to the secrepeated’ wh
with the Govndence not pg the request
e Commissionot changed.
had not supp He also bel
t the circumsioner did nots, so the Coany case, it wd been withh
mmissioner aprevious req
d in the samurchase of p
ommissioner on concernede passage of t
d is set out ag engaged forubsection of e previous n
es Milligan and
ner did not asimilar to a
ment departmcond requesthen 18 mont
vernment abopreviously sut repeated.
oner accepte. The earlier
plied all the ilieved evidenstances surroot accept theommissionerwas evident theld.
accepted thquest was a r
me controlledparking vouchr could not cd was relativtime.
above. r subsequentsection 14.
notice under d Glasgow Cit
accept the request he h
ments or t. The ths had elapsout the projeupplied. The
ed that Mr r request had
nformation nce of other ounding the
ese argumentr was unablethat the Univ
hat Mr Milligareasonable pe
d parking arehers. Mr Milonclude that
vely static in
11
t
ty
had
sed ect. e
d been
ts. to versity
an’s eriod.
ea, lligan t the
ResoCommThe fuCommdecisio Other HM Chttp://http:// ManEIR Part Underextent
See A Part The E Mani The EConveunreafor reinformworki The C‘manifconsid As witreque
urces: missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (
jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judicia
nifestly Rs
1: What d
r the EIRs, a t that:
• the req• the req
duty un
Appendix at t
2: Applyin
EIRs impleme
ifestly unr
EIRs do not dention Implesonable’. Unsponding to
mation requeng days.
Commissionefestly unreasderations as
th a ‘vexatioest to be ‘ma
cisions: of the Com
website. To (e.g. 0xx/200
bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/m
unreaso
does the la
Scottish pub
quest for infoquest for infonder regulati
the end for fu
ng the reg
ent Directiv
reasonable
define the terementation Gnder regulatia request fo
ested makes
er has publishonable’. Geshe would in
ous request’, nifestly unre
mmissioner’s view a decis
0x) in the ‘Se
ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal
onable o
aw say?
blic authority
ormation is mormation is fon 9 [to pro
ull text.
gulations
ve 2003/4/E
e requests
rm ‘manifestGuide makes ion 7 of the
or environmeit impractica
hed a numbenerally, in apn reaching a
there may beasonable’ (se
decisions, inion, go to w
earch’ bar.
of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o
or gene
y may refuse
manifestly unormulated in
ovide reasona
C on public
tly unreasonait clear that EIRs, a publiental informaable to comp
er of decisionpplying this rdecision as t
be circumstanee above).
cluding thoswww.itspublic
rmation Rightspx and Upp
osccs-decisio
eral requ
e a request to
nreasonable (n too generaable advice a
access to en
able’, and net volume andc authority iation to 40 wply with the r
ns on whethregulation, shto whether a
nces where t
e referencedcknowledge.i
ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns
uests – r
o make envir
(regulation 1al a manner, aand assistanc
nvironmenta
ither does thd complexity s allowed to
working daysrequest (or t
her a requesthe is likely toa request is v
the burden o
d above, can nfo/decision
(Administrat
regulati
ronmental in
0(4)(b)); or and the auth
ce to the app
l information
he Directive.alone do no
o extend the s if the volumto decide to
t for environo take into acvexatious (se
of responding
be viewed ons and enter
tive Appeals
ions 10(
nformation av
hority has coplicant] (regu
n.
. However, ot make a req
maximum 2me and comp
refuse the r
nmental inforccount the see above).
g alone justif
on the the relevant
Chamber)
(4)(b) &
vailable to th
omplied with ulation 10(4)(
the Aarhus quest ‘manife
20 working dplexity of therequest) with
rmation is ame kinds of
fies deeming
12
& (c)
he
its (c)).
estly ays
e hin 20
f
g a
Unlikewhere
a
b
Publicdifficu(witho Requ The CCommfor:
A reqworkian autreque Reaso Regula
a
b The Sthe EIstates
e FOISA, thee:
a) the timereasona
b) an extenwith the
c authorities ulties involvedout good cau
uests form
Convention amissioner has
• an auth• an auth
days wo
uest may be ng days or athority may rest will not b
onable adv
ation 9(2) pr
a) ask the of a req
b) assist th
cottish MinisRs (see belo (on pages 9
• providi• providi
the info• providi
provide• contact
ere is no cos
e and expensable person wnsion of an ae request ma
have a duty d in processuse) refuses t
mulated in
and the EIRs s not yet dea
hority’s abilithority’s abilitould still not
general, butan extended receive a reqe too genera
vice and ass
rovides that
applicant as quest, to prohe applicant i
sters’ Code ow) provides9 and 10) tha
ng the outlinng access toormation helng a general ed on requesting the appl
t limit on co
se involved iwould regardadditional 20anageable.
to advise aning a requestto refine the
too gener
do not specalt with a cas
ty to identify ty to comply t be sufficien
t if the autho40 day perioquest for ‘all al.
sistance
where a req
soon as posvide more pin providing
of Practice o guidance on
at where a re
ne of the diffo detailed catld by the autresponse to
st; or icant to disc
omplying with
n complying d them as ex0 working day
d assist applt, and has offeir request, it
ral a mann
cify what is mse on this iss
the informawith the reqt to make th
ority is able tod, it is unlike
information
uest has bee
sible, and in articulars in those partic
on the dischan what constequest is not
ferent kinds otalogues and thority; o the request
uss what info
h a request f
with a requxcessive; andys (possible
icants. If an affered assistat may be ’ma
ner
meant by ‘forsue. Howev
ation requestquest - i.e. if he request m
to identify thely to be ‘to
n held on X’
en formulate
any event norelation to tulars.
arge of functtitutes reasot reasonably
of informatioindexes to h
t setting out
ormation the
for environm
est for envir under regula
authority hasance with refanifestly unre
rmulated in ter, the expe
ted; or extending th
manageable.
he informatioo general’ fobut if X is a
d in too gen
o later than the request;
tions by Scotnable adviceclear approp
on that mighhelp the app
options for
e applicant w
mental inform
ronmental inf
ation 7) is no
s taken reasofining the reqeasonable’.
oo general actation is tha
he 20 workin
on requestedor the purpodiscrete subj
eral a manne
20 working and
ttish public auand assistan
priate assista
t meet the tlicant ascerta
further infor
wants.
mation, but th
formation m
ot sufficient t
onable stepsquest, and th
a manner’, anat there mus
ng days perio
d and complyse of the EIR
bject, with lim
er, the autho
days after th
uthorities unnce. In particance might in
terms of the ain the natur
rmation that
here may be
means that an
to make dea
to explain the applicant
nd the st be implicat
od to 40 wo
y, either withRs. For instamited record
ority shall:
he date of re
nder FOISA cular, the Conclude:
request; re and exten
t could be
13
cases
ny
ling
the
tions
rking
hin 20 ance, ds, the
ceipt
and ode
nt of
Publ The erelatiomakinreque The Cavailab Part • 02
M TpamCreCclexCau
• 15
su Tcoacthredepr
• InfoM
Twsttohacowth Fi
ic interest
xceptions inon to regulatng the requesests, may be r
Commissioneble from the
3: Regulat
20/2011 MrMr Calder’s
he decisionart of the ap
make, especiommissione
evisit issues rommissioneassify Mr Caxpressed stroouncil; robu
uthorities an
53/2011 Mrubmissions o
he Commissonsidered ancknowledgedhese were voequests of themonstratingrovided by th
n Decision 0ocused too mMr Kane’s cur
he current r
when dealing wtaff at the effo evidence ofave been harontinued to s
within Scottishhat this was a
nally, Scottis
t test
regulations tion 10(4)(b)sted informarelevant her
er has produ Commissio
tion 10(4)
r Garry Calrequests w
n acknowledpplicant andially where r accepted trelating to a r commente
alder’s style oongly and nost and persisd by the indi
r Tommy Kon the wide-r
sioner notedny of the reqd the relevanoluminous anhat nature. Tg a significanthe Ministers
012/2012 Mmuch on the rrent reques
requests werwith them infect of the ref harassmentrassed simplyseek more. h Water wita particularly
sh Water app
10(4)(b) and), where a reation availablee.
ced separatener’s website
)(b) in prac
lder and Eaere manifes
dged that thd being vexarequests what there muparticular gr
ed on a numbof corresponot always accstent questioividuals repr
Kane and thranging natur
that the Minuests to hav
nce of other nd complex, The Commist burden, buwas not suff
Mr Tommy disruptive nats were disr
re specific annitially. Scottequests on tht. The Comy because theThe Commi
th the knowly unusual situ
peared to ha
d (c) of the Eequest is mane. Consider
e guidance toe (see Resou
ctice: relev
ast Lothianstly unreaso
here was oftatious or mere linked tust be a limitrievance, butber of specifindence as intcurately; andoning, sometesenting the
he Scottishre of Mr Kan
nisters coulde been formrequests froalthough thesioner accept was not saficiently case
Kane and Sature of prevuptive and ca
d well formutish Water hheir other dumissioner die applicant hissioner acknedge and exuation.
ave indicated
EIRs are subjnifestly unrearations of pro
o assist with urces section
evant decis
n Council -onable.
ten a thin limanifestly unto a backgrot to the numt did not beliic aspects oftended to ca (2) that the
times in fairlyem.
h Ministers ne’s requests
d have soughmulated in tooom Mr Kane, ere were spepted that volatisfied that se-specific to
Scottish Wvious requesaused harass
ulated, and Shad also refeuties. The Cod not agree
had been pronowledged thperience to
d to the appl
ect to the puasonable butoportionality
the considen below).
sions
The Comm
ne betweennreasonableound issue w
mber of timesieve this authf the case, disause disruptio correspondy critical tone
–The Comms.
t more partio general a mstill under c
ecific provisioume and com
such a burdeenable that c
Water, the Csts, some timsment.
Scottish Waterred to the ommissionerthat an auth
ovided with ahat there migdeal with re
icant that it w
ublic interestt there is stily, outlined ab
ration of the
missioner wa
n requests s. This coulwhich was ds a public authority had resagreeing (1)on or annoyadence had thees, was to be
missioner did
iculars (undemanner. Theconsiderationons in the EImplexity mign existed heconclusion to
ommissionerme in the past
ter had been concern andr could not aority and its
a substantial ght be a relaquests of thi
would refuse
t test. This l a strong pubove in relat
e public inter
as not satisf
showing perld be a difficdifficult to rthority couldeached that p) that it was ance, althouge effect of hae expected b
d not accept
er regulatione Commission by the MinRs designed
ght be relevaere as the info be reached
r found that st, when argu
able to appld annoyance accept that t employees amount of in
atively small is nature, bu
e to respond
is most relevublic interesttion to vexat
rest test. Th
fied that
rsistence oncult judgmeresolve. Thd be expectepoint here. reasonable tgh it was arassing the by public
the Minister
9(2)) if theyoner isters. Someto deal with
ant factors information d.
the authorituing that
ly exemptionexpressed b
these amouncould be saidnformation, number of pt did not bel
d to any futu
14
vant in t in tious
his is
n the nt to
he ed to The to
rs’
y had
e of h
ty had
ns y its ted d to but
people lieve
re
reTas
• 02beevan
FrCun
ResoCommThe fuCommdecisio The PuThe CEIRsG If you or dec Directhttp:/ ConveMattewww. The Awww. ScottiInformhttp:// Other HM Chttp://http://
equests fromhe Commisss manifestly u
20/2013 Mre manifestlyven if it mignother form
rom the arg
Council that nreasonable
urces: missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (
ublic Interest CommissioneGuidance/The
do not have acisions. Conta
tive 2003/4/E//eur-lex.eu
ention on Acers .unece.org/en
Aarhus Conv.unece.org/en
sh Ministersmation (Scotl/www.scotla
jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judicia
m him regardsioner could unreasonable
r Daniel Hey unreasonaght be morem of the aut
guments procompliance
e.
cisions: of the Com
website. To (e.g. 0xx/200
Test: er’s briefing oePublicIntere
access to the act details are
EC on publicuropa.eu/Le
ccess to Info
nv/pp/docum
vention: An Imnv/pp/acig.pd
’ Code of Prland) Act 20nd.gov.uk/Re
bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/m
less of subjecnot support
e.
enderson aable to prove meaningfuthority’s cho
ovided and e would req
mmissioner’s view a decis
0x) in the ‘Se
on the publicestTest.
internet, thene available at
c access to eexUriServ/
ormation, Pub
ments/cep43e
mplementatidf
ractice on th002 and the Eesource/Doc
ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal
ct matter, hot this approac
nd Falkirk vide the infol (as the Cooosing.
the informaquire such a
decisions, inion, go to w
earch’ bar.
c interest tes
n you can conthe end of thi
environmenta/LexUriServ
blic Participa
e.pdf
on Guide
e Discharge Environmentc/933/010942
of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o
ow readily thch, which wo
Council - Tormation inouncil believ
ation availaban input of s
cluding thoswww.itspublic
st is available
ntact our officis document.
al informatiorv.do?uri=O
ation in Deci
of Functionstal Informatio25.pdf
rmation Rightspx and Upp
osccs-decisio
hey could beould be to re
The Commi the generaved) to pro
ble, the Coskill and jud
e referencedcknowledge.i
e at www.its
e to request a
on: OJ:L:2003:04
sion-making
s by Scottishon (Scotland)
ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns
e responded egard the ap
ssioner did al form requvide inform
mmissionerdgment that
d above, can nfo/decision
publicknowle
a copy of any
41:0026:003
and Access
Public Auth) Regulations
(Administrat
to or their applicant (and
not acceptuested by th
mation of thi
r did not agt the reques
be viewed ons and enter
edge.info/Law
y of the Comm
32:EN:PDF
to Justice in
horities undes 2004
tive Appeals
actual impactnot the requ
t that it wouhe applicantis type in
ree with thst was manif
on the the relevant
w/FOISA-
missioner’s bri
F
Environmen
er the Freedo
Chamber)
15
t. uest)
uld t,
e festly
efings
ntal
om of
Friv Part Underapplicthe pureasonis frivo Part Vexa The Cfor th Frivo ThereCommsectioserve Part The C •
•
volous o
1: What d
r section 49(ation which ublic authoritnable in the olous or vex
2: Applyin
atious app
Commissionee purpose o
olous appl
e is no definitmissioner hason 14. The te
no useful pu
3: Section
Commissione
In one case,section 38(1data subjectapplicant, upCommissionpurpose.
In a further which had aapplicant in Commissioninvestigation
or vexat
does the la
(1) of FOISAshe believesty notice in wcircumstanc
xatious. The
ng section
lications
er will take inf section 14(
ications
tion of a ‘frivs greater diserm ‘frivolouurpose, and w
n 49(1) in
er does not d
the applican1)(a) of FOISt). The Compholding the ner deemed
example, thealready been the later app
ner had just n would have
tious ap
aw say?
A, the Scottis is frivolous writing withies. The Com applicant ha
n 49(1)
nto account (1) of FOISA
volous’ applicscretion thanus’ may be apwould not be
practice: c
deem applica
nt was dissatSA (which prmmissioner h
use of the ethis new app
e Commissiofound to be
plication hadissued a dece served no
pplicatio
sh Informatioor vexatiousin one montmmissioner’sas a right of a
the same crA (see above)
cation in FOn a public autpplied wheree an appropr
case files
ations to be
tisfied becausrovides an abad previously
exemption onplication to b
oner deemedexempt in a
d acted as ageision on the useful purpo
ons – sec
on Commissis. In such cath of receivins notice musappeal to the
riteria as she ).
OISA. The tethority has we an applicatriate use of l
vexatious lig
se a requestbsolute exemy issued fourn each occasbe frivolous a
d an applicata decision issent for the amatter. Wi
ose.
Kinb
ction 49
ioner has theases, the Comng the applicast set out thee Court of S
would if con
rm does notwhen decidinion is so cleaimited invest
ghtly.
for his own mption for per separate desion. Four mas further in
tion frivoloussued a few daapplicant in tithout a chan
Theburn Castle, D
9(1) FOI
e discretion mmissioner mation, or withe reasons whession on a p
nsidering wh
t appear in seg whether toarly trivial ortigative reso
personal datersonal data ecisions on t
more investigvestigation w
s where it soays before thhe first, so wnge in circum
For
e Scottish IDoubledykes
enquirieww
ISA
not to reachmust give thhin such othhy she believpoint of law.
hether a requ
ection 14, mo comply witr lacking in m
ources for th
ta had been where the athe same issugations werewould have s
ought a subsehe applicatiowas aware thmstances, a fu
more infor
nformations Road, St A
es@itspubliww.itspubli
h a decision oe applicant a
her period asves the applic.
uest is vexati
meaning the th a request
merit that it we Commissio
declined undapplicant is thue to the sam on-going. T
served no us
et of informaon was made.hat the urther
rmation co
n CommissAndrews KY1
T: 01334 4F: 01334 4
cknowledgcknowledg
16
on an and s is cation
ious
under would oner.
der he me The eful
ation . The
ntact:
sioner 6 9DS
464610 464611
ge.info ge.info
App Free 14
15
16
Envir
9
pendix
edom of In
Vexatiou
(1) Sere
(2) Wobunan
Duty to p
(1) Aas
(2) Acoco
Refusal o
…
(5) Awno
(a
(b
…
ronmenta
Duty to
(1) Ato
(2) W
(a
1
nformation
us or repea
ection 1(1) dequest is vex
Where a Scotbliged to comnless there hnd the makin
provide adv
A Scottish pubssistance to a
A Scottish pubonforms to tomply with t
of request
A Scottish pubwithin that timot be given if
a) the authe ap
b) it wourelatio
al Informat
provide a
A Scottish puo expect the
Where a req
a) ask thafter reque
n (Scotland
ated reques
does not oblixatious.
ttish public amply with a shas been a reng of the sub
vice and as
blic authoritya person wh
blic authoritythe code of pthe duty imp
blic authorityme, give the af-
uthority has, pplicant a no
uld in all the on to the cu
tion (Scot
advice and
ublic authore authority
quest has be
he applicantthe date of
est; and
d) Act 200
sts
ige a Scottish
uthority has subsequent reasonable pesequent req
ssistance
y must, so fao proposes t
y which, in rpractice issueosed by subs
y which, in rapplicant a n
in relation ttice under th
circumstancrrent reques
land) Regu
assistance
rity shall proto do so, to
een formula
t as soon asf receipt of
02
h public auth
complied wrequest fromeriod of timeuest.
ar as it is reato make, or
relation to thed under secsection (1).
relation to sunotice which
to a previoushis subsectio
ces be unreast.
ulations 2
e
ovide advico applicants
ated in too g
s possible, arequest, to
hority to com
with a requestm that person between th
asonable to ehas made, a
he provision ction 60 is, a
uch a requeststates that i
s identical oron; and
sonable to e
004
e and assists and prosp
general a m
and in any e provide mo
mply with a r
t from a pern which is idee making of
expect it to drequest for
of advice or s respects th
t, claims thatt so claims; e
r substantially
xpect it to s
tance, so farpective appli
manner, the
vent no lateore particu
request for in
rson for inforentical or suthe request
do so, providinformation
assistance inhat case, to b
t section 14 except that t
y similar suc
serve a furth
r as it woulicants.
authority s
er than 20 wlars in relat
nformation if
rmation, it isubstantially sicomplied wi
de advice andto it.
n any case, be taken to
applies mustthe notice ne
ch request, gi
er such notic
d be reason
hall-
working daytion to the
17
f the
s not imilar ith
d
t, eed
iven
ce in
nable
ys
10
(b
(3) T1h
(4) Inrerere
Exceptio
(1) A
(a)
(b)
(2) In au
(a)
(b)
…
(4) A
…
(b
(c
…
b) assist
To the exte8 in relatio
have compli
n any case toeceived by tegulations 5espond to t
ons from du
Scottish pub
) there
) in all tthat in
considering thority shall-
) interp
) apply
Scottish pub
…
b) the re
c) the recomp
…
t the applica
nt that a Scon to the pred with the
o which parthe authorit5(2)(a), 6(2)that request
uty to make
blic authority
is an except
the circumstn maintaining
the applicati-
pret those pa
a presumpti
blic authority
equest for inf
equest for inflied with its
ant in provid
cottish publiovision of a
e duty impo
ragraph (2) ty shall be t(a) and 13(at by these R
e environm
y may refuse
tion to disclo
tances, the pg the except
ion of the ex
aragraphs in
on in favour
y may refuse
formation is
formation is duty under r
ding those p
ic authorityadvice and aosed by para
applies, thetreated as ta) and any p
Regulations
mental infor
a request to
osure under
ublic interesion.
xceptions ref
a restrictive
r of disclosur
to make env
manifestly u
formulated regulation 9;
particulars.
y conforms tassistance inagraph (1) in
e date on whe date of tperiod withshall begin
rmation av
o make envir
paragraphs (
st in making t
ferred to in
way; and
re.
vironmental
unreasonable
in too gener;
to a code on a particulan relation to
which the furthe request in which thon the day
ailable–
ronmental inf
(4) or (5); an
the informat
paragraphs (
information
e;
ral a manner
of practice uar case, it sho that case.
rther partict for the purhe authorityfollowing th
formation av
nd
tion available
(4) and (5), a
available to
r and the aut
under regulahall be take.
culars are rposes of y is requiredhat date.
vailable if-
e is outweigh
a Scottish pub
the extent t
hority has
18
ation n to
d to
ed by
blic
that
App
PrepaDateApprDateDocuversioNumPubli
Record
Date
26/3/1
pendix 2
ared by: :
roved by: :
ument namon and loca
mber of pageshed:
d of Documen
Versiochang
13 V01.00
2 - Docu
EuMSIM
me, ation:
SeIN
es: 19Y
nt Changes
on ged
New versiono
0 19
ument I
uan McCulloMarch 2013 IC
March 2013 ection 14 BrNV 39874 9
Yes
on
Brie
Majofor dete
Informa
och
iefing: Vexat
Date:
ef Descript
or update tosubstantial bermination m
ation
tious or Repe
28 March 20
tion
o remove reqburden and tomore criteria
eated Reque
013
quirement o make a focussed
ests
Reason foChange
Policy shift
or Initials
EM
19
top related