Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (Central government) [2021] UKICO ic-47382 (22 December 2021)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Information Commissioner's Office


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (Central government) [2021] UKICO ic-47382 (22 December 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2021/ic-47382.html
Cite as: [2021] UKICO ic-47382

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking access to six files concerning Sri Lanka in the 1980s. The FCO disclosed some part of the files to the complainant but sought to withhold other parts on the basis of the following exemptions within FOIA: section 23(1) (security bodies), section 24(1) (national security), sections 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations), sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant disputed the FCO’s reliance on these exemptions and also argued that the FCO should have provided him with a schedule of how it was applying the exemptions to the specific redactions. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO is entitled to withhold the remaining information on the basis of the exemptions it has cited, the only exception to this is a small portion of information contained in file FCO 37/4354. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO was not obliged to provide the complainant with a schedule setting out how the exemptions had been applied. It did however breach section 17(3) by failing to complete its public interest test considerations in a reasonable time.

FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld FOI 26: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Decision notice: ic-47382


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2021/ic-47382.html