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:
Post a Comment