... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Friday, 31 July 2015

Knowle relocation project: 'We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly.'

The Information Tribunal has made its final decision on the publication of consultants' reports:
East Devon District Council v Information Commissioner EA/2014/0072 - 28/07/2015

The District Council has issued a press release: 
29 July 2015 - Tribunal appeal process now concluded, council to publish remaining documents - East Devon

This is from today's Herald:

Final court ruling published in FoI battle

10:38 31 July 2015
A ten-month legal wrangle over the release of confidential district council documents came to a close this week, after a judge made a final ruling on the disclosure of classified relocation reports.
Wednesday’s decision comes two months after a tribunal ordered East Devon District Council (EDDC) to disclose paperwork from 2009 to 2013 relating to its move from Sidmouth.
The council spent £11,000 on legal fees in an attempt to keep the reports confidential. A final report, as well as appendices to previously published reports, will now be published. However, parts of the documents that contain commercially sensitive information will be redacted. EDDC’s deputy chief executive, Richard Cohen, said he was glad the process had now reached a ‘satisfactory conclusion’, adding: “It has never been our wish to go to a tribunal hearing and we have repeatedly tried to seek resolution in correspondence, which would have been quicker and cheaper. However, it was important that we have been able to maintain the right to protect the confidentiality of third parties, including local businesses, and legal advice.”
He added the process had ‘taken far longer than the council could ever have anticipated or have wished’.

Things look a little different if we look at what the conclusion from the earlier decision from the Tribunal says:

31. This Tribunal takes the unusual and unfortunate step of commenting on the conduct of the appeal itself. 
We are unanimous in our view that this appeal has taken much longer than it should have done and the reason for this seems to be the failure on the part of the public authority, the appellant, to address itself with sufficient attention to the details of what information and documents it was supplying to the Commissioner and ultimately also to the Tribunal. 
It was not until March 2015 that a fully legible copy of the disputed information was supplied and seemed to be complete. This is, in our collective experience, wholly exceptional and the time spent dealing with what we believe to be five different sets of disputed information is simply not a good use of the Tribunal’s time nor fair, in terms of delay, to the requester. 
Correspondence on behalf of the Council, rather than ensuring the Tribunal was assisted in its function, was at times discourteous and unhelpful including the statement that we had the most legible copies possible. A statement, which was clearly inaccurate as subsequently, we have been provided with perfectly legible documents. 
We believe this appeal could and should have been dealt with completely at the hearing in August 2014 and the decision promulgated six months ago had the Council discharged its responsibilities properly. 

No comments: