FOI request declined - any thoughts?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Here

My thoughts are that they are talking absolute bollocks btw, but would appreciate pointers on next steps.

Surely denying this information undermines the whole SEN process!?

They really don't want to disclose the information do they?!
Request an internal review and then complain to the ICO?

I can't do both of those without being able to say why it needs to be reviewed and what the ICO have to investigate.

I have learned on here that the ICO will not bother if they can think they can get away with it so you have to be clear.

I suppose my reason for the internal review can be 'because I think you're talking bollocks'!

The LA should have nothing to hide wrt lessons learned ffs. They should be happy to disclose their learned lessons to justify the recruitment of the blimmin legal firm in the first place.

Umm...having read it, I think they have justified it. Sorry They can't be expected to reveal privileged information while cases are ongoing. Additionally, the number of cases to which the case enquiry relates must be really quite small, so individuals are easily identifiable if you have a few key facts.

What are the annual reviews you are after Star? Can you broaden the wording?

The public body has a duty to help you if your request doesn't quite fit their documentation.

Sorry just read the stuff about the first principle - well:

1. Consent is only factor under the first principle

1. Can they not redact?

It's from previous information. The contract with the firm states that the firm should produce an annual review detailing lessons learned.

yes I would have expected them to redact, or summarise perhaps.

In truth I never was expecting a word for word detailed copy but did expect a bit more than 'no', - although when I say 'expect' it is more in relation to what I feel I should have been given rather than what I truly expected this LA to deliver iyswim.

Well if their only problem is third party personal data - redact.

Ask for a review and simply ask them to redact and release the original document as it is in the public interest.

· There is a strong inherent interest for legal advice to be
exempt from disclosure as disclosure would prevent access to full and
frank legal advice

How do I deal with this one, which tbh I think is the only one they are bothered about.

Document on Legal Professional Privilege in relation to the FOI

This might be useful?

Thank you Lougle

'reasonable suspicion of illegality or misrepresentation'

Hmm. This is interesting.

The thing is, I feel morally that there is something wrong with the implication that anything contained in his document should be exempt for legal reasons. Unless the LA is admitting here that they are trying to win tribunals on the basis of tactics and dubious reasons rather than in order to do what is best for the child or public funds iyswim.

'if the disclosure of information would adversely affect the course of justice.'

Surely such a document disclosure would enhance the course of justice?

Hmmm...looking at other FOI requests made to this LA, they don't seem to be particularly keen to be either helpful to requesters or to reveal information.
Love the Whatdotheyknow site though, great idea!

An LPP exemption only covers a document created for the purposes of litigation.

This is a general document - a report back. I would argue that LPP does not cover it.

I have not read all of this but as a journo who regularly gets knock backs on FoI requests. 1 request an immediate review then if thats unsuccessful 2 refer to the information commissioner.

But then what Lottie? do you get the information?

The major challenge here is whether they have properly balanced the weight of public interest.

They have used this generalised preference against disclosure:

There is a strong inherent interest for legal advice to be
exempt from disclosure as disclosure would prevent access to full and
frank legal advice.

FOI case law recognises a tendency to strong public interest in using the Section 42 exemption, but this seems to go further than the case law.

They have also stated:
The Case Evaluation document is a still current working
document, as some cases and the legal processes involved are ongoing.

But they don't discuss whether these cases could be redacted and the remaining information released.

I would ask for a review based on a reconsideration of the public interest test and consideration of whether a redacted document would meet the public interest test. I'd say your chances of getting any information are low but, depending on the quality of the review, the ICO may look at it (after a long delay).

Hi Star,
I am no expert on this, but decided to have a Google and came across this
foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/Line_to_take_-LTT15-_Public_interest_in_legal_professional_privilege

Which may be helpful

Thank you so much for your contributions.

I've dealt with my latest issues and will now continue......

Glad to hear that, though I was looking forward to you requesting an internal review and seeing the information that you requested published on the website, although I expect that would require making a complaint to the ICO.

I have requested an internal review.......

This may all take some time.

Did you dig up anything interesting from your previous requests? Like how much money they are spending by employing Baker Small, success rates etc?