Comments on: Standing before the Information Tribunal http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/ A guide to the Freedom of Information Act & other access laws Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:01:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Roy Benford http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/comment-page-1/#comment-8941 Roy Benford Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:58:52 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/#comment-8941 I attended as a member of the public the morning session on 4th January of the Tribunal case Department for Education and Skills v The Information Commissioner EA/2006/0006, an interesting experience. At one point during the department's evidence, I was left with the impression that the core argument was "the right of civil servants to make policy in private before the minister 'decides'". But, it was just a passing view. There was also a comment by Mr Crowe, representing the department, asking for a ruling. It was difficult to hear from behind but it seemed that the Information Commissioner had introduced Section 40 and not the department. This has happened to me in my case against defra. It will be interesting to hear the outcome. My complaint is about defra's refusal to the publish details of egg producers that correspond to the code on each egg. In my view, we have a right to know who produces the food we eat, see FS50089403. Rod, I am no lawyer either. I went to Procession House as part of my preparation to decided whether or not to appeal. I would recommend a visit. I went casually dressed, a suit would have blended in better. Roy I attended as a member of the public the morning session on 4th January of the Tribunal case Department for Education and Skills
v The Information Commissioner EA/2006/0006, an interesting experience. At one point during the department’s evidence, I was left with the impression that the core argument was “the right of civil servants to make policy in private before the minister ‘decides’”. But, it was just a passing view.

There was also a comment by Mr Crowe, representing the department, asking for a ruling. It was difficult to hear from behind but it seemed that the Information Commissioner had introduced Section 40 and not the department. This has happened to me in my case against defra. It will be interesting to hear the outcome. My complaint is about defra’s refusal to the publish details of egg producers that correspond to the code on each egg. In my view, we have a right to know who produces the food we eat, see FS50089403.

Rod, I am no lawyer either. I went to Procession House as part of my preparation to decided whether or not to appeal. I would recommend a visit. I went casually dressed, a suit would have blended in better.

Roy

]]> By: Rod http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/comment-page-1/#comment-8860 Rod Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:18:31 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/#comment-8860 Thank you for sharing your experiences of the tribunal. I have found out today that the Department of Health appealed, on 21st December, to the Information Tribunal against the decision notice of the Information Commissioner ruling that they must disclose the report by Sir William Wells into the NHS University. Although I have not seen a copy of the appeal I understand it argues that the Information Commissioner was wrong in his application of sections 33, 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This means that my case will now be going to the Information Tribunal & I'm worried as I'm no lawyer & don't really have any idea what to expect. see http://www.rodspace.co.uk/blog/blogger.html over the last 2 years + for the full story & documents. Rod Thank you for sharing your experiences of the tribunal.

I have found out today that the Department of Health appealed, on 21st December, to the Information Tribunal against the decision notice of the Information Commissioner ruling that they must disclose the report by Sir William Wells into the NHS University. Although I have not seen a copy of the appeal I understand it argues that the Information Commissioner was wrong in his application of sections 33, 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This means that my case will now be going to the Information Tribunal & I’m worried as I’m no lawyer & don’t really have any idea what to expect.

see http://www.rodspace.co.uk/blog/blogger.html over the last 2 years + for the full story & documents.

Rod

]]> By: PCLP http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/comment-page-1/#comment-8690 PCLP Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:30:02 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/#comment-8690 "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide. The same argument can be used against a public authority." QFT Absolutely appalling behaviour. “If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide. The same argument can be used against a public authority.”

QFT

Absolutely appalling behaviour.

]]> By: peter whale http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/comment-page-1/#comment-8474 peter whale Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:04:50 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/standing-before-the-information-tribunal/#comment-8474 I think that any communication between No 10 and the B.B.C. should be on public record especially if it is not parliamentary business. I think that any communication between No 10 and the B.B.C. should be on public record especially if it is not parliamentary business.

]]>