British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Ministry of Justice (Central government) [2021] UKICO ic-126073 (15 November 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2021/ic-126073.html
Cite as: [2021] UKICO ic-126073
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Ministry of Justice
The complainant has requested the submissions and underlying evidence and statistics submitted by government departments in response to a ‘Call for Evidence’ relating to Judicial Review Reform. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the complainant with the web link to the publicly available submissions. For the remaining withheld submissions, the MOJ said that some information contained in these departmental submissions had been incorporated into a summary document which the MOJ had published in April 2021, However, it withheld the exact detail of those unpublished submissions by virtue of section 36(2)(a)(i) (the exemption for the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown). During the latter stage of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position and cited section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in relation to the submissions in their entirety. It highlighted those parts of the submissions which it now considered to additionally fall under section 36(2)(a)(i). In relation to the requested underlying evidence and statistics, the MOJ provided the information it held and said it did not hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ correctly relied on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the remaining requested submissions. She finds that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. As she has found section 36(2)(c) to be engaged, the Commissioner does not consider it necessary to determine whether section 36(2)(a)(i) also applies. The MOJ explained that the complainant had made a separate request to the Home Office in relation to the second part of the request and had secured some information; a copy of that response was sent by the Home Office to the MOJ and is, therefore now held. The Commissioner notes that the complainant is already in possession of that information through her request to the Home Office, so does not consider it necessary to order the MOJ to provide the same information to her again. In relation to the remaining underlying evidence and statistics which the MOJ said it did not hold, the Commissioner finds, on the balance of probabilities, that this information is not held by the MOJ. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0378 under appeal.FOI 36: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: ic-126073