British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50200163 (24 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2010/FS50200163.html
Cite as: [2010] UKICO FS50200163
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Decision Notice) [2010] UKICO FS50200163 (24 May 2010)
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (-˜the Ombudsman-™) to request information regarding 80 complaints referred to the Ombudsman between 2006 and 2007 by Dr Tony Wright MP. The Ombudsman responded to the request by explaining that the information requested was exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act. The Ombudsman cited Section 11(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as the relevant statutory prohibition. In addition, the Ombudsman advised the complainant that the information requested was also exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(c) of the Act. However, the Ombudsman acknowledged that there was a legitimate public interest in the Ombudsman-™s relationship with Dr Tony Wright MP and provided the complainant with some of the information requested. This information was provided in aggregated form and outside the Ombudsman-™s obligations under the Act. As the Ombudsman-™s decision had been taken by the Ombudsman herself, no internal review was offered to the complainant. The complainant subsequently wrote to the Ombudsman and requested a schedule of the communications generated by his previous request for information and copies of any such communications. The Ombudsman responded to this further request and confirmed that it did not hold a schedule of the correspondence generated by the complainant-™s previous request. The Ombudsman further advised the complainant that it would not be releasing copies of its communications to him as this would result in the complainant either obtaining information already received or information that had been already withheld from the complainant and/or heavily redacted documents. The complainant was informed that some of the information held was a request for internal legal advice, and was therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act on account of legal professional privilege. The Ombudsman carried out an internal review of this decision which upheld the decision. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the Ombudsman correctly withheld the original information requested under section 44 and correctly withheld the additional information requested under section 42 of the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the Ombudsman.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld