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 >> Department for International Trade (Central government) [2022] UKICO 109528 (18 July 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2022/109528.html
Cite as: [2022] UKICO 109528
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Department for International Trade
The complainant made a five-part request for information on applications made by, and licences granted to, a specified company for exports related to Hornet Bomb Rack/Hornet Missile Launcher, between 2014-present to certain named countries. The Department for International Trade (‘DIT’) provided the information related to Turkey in tabular form in response to parts 1-4 of the request and said some of the information was not held (part 1). DIT refused to provide some of the requested information (for the remaining countries for parts 1-4), citing section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication). For the remaining requested information (part 5), DIT cited sections 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests). At the internal review stage, the complainant stated that he did not wish to challenge DIT’s reliance on section 40 of FOIA, so this aspect has not been considered further. Given that the complainant has neither complained about the disclosed information nor DIT’s statement that some of the requested information was not held for part 1 of his request, the Commissioner has excluded these elements from his investigation. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, (whilst maintaining that section 22 applied), DIT additionally cited section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) for the remaining withheld information in parts 1-4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA for the remainder of part 1-4 of the request. He has not deemed it necessary, therefore, to consider DIT’s reliance on sections 22 and 36 of FOIA. For part 5 of the request, the Commissioner finds that DIT was entitled to rely on section 41 of FOIA. He has therefore, not considered DIT’s citing of section 43 any further. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.FOI 44: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: 109528