Information Commissioner's Office

Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of legal advice referred to by an employee of the public authority in a newspaper article. The public authority stated that this information was not held. The complainant referred to a piece of legal advice that had been discussed at the Leveson Inquiry (the -�Inquiry advice-�) and queried whether this fell within the scope of his request. The public authority stated that the Inquiry advice did not fall within the scope of the request. However, it did disclose an extract of this advice to the complainant. The complainant complained that by failing to refer to the Inquiry advice the public authority had failed in its duty to provide advice and assistance (section 16 FOIA). He also queried whether the Inquiry advice fell within the scope of his request, and (if so) argued that he should have been provided with a full copy of it (section 1 FOIA). The Commissioner-�s decision is that the Inquiry advice did not fall under the scope of the complainant-�s request. As such, he considers that the public authority was not required to inform the complainant of this advice under section 16. As he has decided that the Inquiry advice did not fall under the scope of the request, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider whether this advice should have been disclosed to the complainant in full. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld