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 >> Attorney General's Office (Central government) [2021] UKICO IC-50017 (14 June 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2021/ic-50017.html
Cite as: [2021] UKICO IC-50017
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Attorney General's Office
The complainant made a three-part request for information relating to Dominic Cummings’ “lockdown travel to Durham”. The Attorney General’s Office (the ‘AGO’) provided the requested information for part 2 of the request and initially refused to confirm or deny whether the remainder was held, citing section 35(3) of FOIA (formulation of government policy, etc) by virtue of sections 35(1)(a), (c) and (d). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the AGO partly revised its position as set out in the ‘Scope’ section and, ultimately, the interpretation of part 2 of the request came under debate. Based on the broader interpretation of part 2 (as set out later in this notice), the AGO confirmed its position to be that it wished to rely on sections 35(1)(a)(c) and (d) for part 1 of the request, and it wished to cite section 35(3) and neither confirm or deny whether any further information (part 2) or information (part 3) was held in accordance with section 35(3) of FOIA. In relation to the first part of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(c) to withhold the requested ‘Schedule of documents’. In respect of the second part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the AGO was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether any further information was held in scope, beyond that already disclosed to the complainant, in accordance with section 35(3) of FOIA, by virtue of section 35(1)(c). With regard to the third part of the request, the Commissioner finds that the AGO was correct to neither confirm nor deny if this information was held, again under section 35(3) by virtue of section 35(1)(c). She also finds that the public interest in relation to all parts of the request supports the AGO’s position. As the Commissioner has found section 35(3) to be engaged by virtue of section 35(1)(c) for both parts 2 and 3 of the request, she has not found it necessary to consider the AGO’s citing of sections 35(1)(a) and (d). The Commissioner does not require the AGO to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.FOI 35(3): Complaint not upheld FOI 35(1): Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: IC-50017