<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Govt dept gets knuckes rapped for FOI delays</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.yrtk.org/2008/dclg-is-not-prioritising-its-foi-backlog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.yrtk.org/2008/dclg-is-not-prioritising-its-foi-backlog/</link>
	<description>A guide to the Freedom of Information Act &#38; other access laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:01:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Francis Davey</title>
		<link>http://www.yrtk.org/2008/dclg-is-not-prioritising-its-foi-backlog/comment-page-1/#comment-39247</link>
		<dc:creator>Francis Davey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/?p=575#comment-39247</guid>
		<description>Actually, all FOI requests should be responded to *promptly*. The 20 days is a long stop. The way the act is drafted envisages a requirement on public authorities to act *sooner* than 20 days but never longer than that (unless the process for extending time is used).

Sorry to seem pedantic, I don&#039;t want us falling into the trap of letting public bodes treat 20 days as a target. In most cases a day or two should be enough.

The same wording is used for judicial review applications (by the way). Many lawyers (who should know better) get this wrong. Ask them what the time limit is to make a JR application and they will say &quot;3 months&quot;. Wrong. Again the time limit is *promptly* and not more than 3 months. The high court does reject non-prompt applications within the 3 month period, so its not mere pedantry there. We can hope for the same strictness (one day) in the field of FOI.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, all FOI requests should be responded to *promptly*. The 20 days is a long stop. The way the act is drafted envisages a requirement on public authorities to act *sooner* than 20 days but never longer than that (unless the process for extending time is used).</p>
<p>Sorry to seem pedantic, I don&#8217;t want us falling into the trap of letting public bodes treat 20 days as a target. In most cases a day or two should be enough.</p>
<p>The same wording is used for judicial review applications (by the way). Many lawyers (who should know better) get this wrong. Ask them what the time limit is to make a JR application and they will say &#8220;3 months&#8221;. Wrong. Again the time limit is *promptly* and not more than 3 months. The high court does reject non-prompt applications within the 3 month period, so its not mere pedantry there. We can hope for the same strictness (one day) in the field of FOI.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
