Just so I'm sure
Just want to check I'm reading this right. The whole line of reasoning is:
If the public knew the truth about Company X, it could harm Company X's commercial interests, therefore the public should not know about this.
Evidence during FOI disputes can be provided in SECRET
Public bodies defending a decision to withhold information requested under freedom of information (FOI) laws can submit evidence to an information rights tribunal in secret, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The Court said that tribunal rules allow for closed evidence sessions to be conducted, meaning that neither the FOI …
-
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 14:58 GMT Matt 21
Re: If the public knew the truth about Company X...
They could either make their case anonymously or if that's too difficult the FOI requester could be given an edited version of Company X's testimony. This should be enough to give the requester the possibility of challenging the evidence.
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 09:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Actually it makes sense (albeit in a FOI context).
If information is exempt from disclosure and the requestor goes to the Tribunal where it is disclosed to them as part of the process it defeats the object of the exemption(s) in the first place.
That said I can see an argument for a requester's legal representatives having access as part of the process but given that many people that go to the Tribunal represent themselves so we again find ourselves in the position of circumventing the exemptions.
Tthe commercial interests exemption is a mess anyway but that's a whole different story!
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 10:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
@NW Cynic
I agree with you there. The Government can hardly prevent disclosure if the person can then see it as part of the appeals process! As for letting the lawyer see it, well this assumes the lawyer is trustworthy. Not exactly a safe assumption I am afraid to say and previous government attempts to only allow trustworthy defence lawyers to see the evidence in terrorist/organised crime cases have been a failure.
While use of the commercial exemption in FOI can often be abused, I doubt it was in this case. Exports licence paperwork often contain sensitive commercial information like value of the product, what exactly is in it, the fees being paid to middle men etc. All useful information to competitors.
Also the UK has applied a national arms embargo (which it can make exceptions for when it deems it necessary for example combating drugs or organised crime which the Iranians also try to stop crossing their borders) on military goods to Iran (as has the US) so military exports are very rare. So rare they are actually reported to Parliament. This case was probably what they call dual-use. Dual use means a commercial product that can be used for military or non-conventional (ie. nuclear weapons). There are damn good reasons why the Government doesn't want some of this information in the public domain and I am slightly surprised they did not use the security exemptions as well as the commercial one.
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 09:13 GMT Pascal Monett
"[these rules] do not undermine principles of justice and fairness"
So, now it is official : the land of Justice and Freedom has already shed the Freedom part and has now dispensed with Justice as well.
Now it'll all be National Security Letters, secret tribunals and kangaroo courts. When is Congress going to be dissolved ? It's not like anybody would object to sending them all to Guantanamo anyway, no ?
And all that for a commercial company that does not want to be known. Well I think that a commercial company that does not want to be known is a company that deals in shady business and should be shut down.
But for the fact that the USA is being run by companies now, so it's all par for the course.
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 09:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "[these rules] do not undermine principles of justice and fairness"
The reasoning has been found in judgements made for the Met Office, BBC, UEA, DfID and many other non corporate entities.
The only difference in this case is the journalist had the financial backing to appeal the ICO's decision not to give them access to evidence and arguments presented by the public body.
You are often told by the ICO, after an appeal, that they are denying the appeal because of an argument and evidence presented by the other side. You are not given the opportunity to counter their argument (since you don't know what it is) or check the validity of the evidence presented.
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 10:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "[these rules] do not undermine principles of justice and fairness"
"Now it'll all be National Security Letters, secret tribunals and kangaroo courts. When is Congress going to be dissolved ? It's not like anybody would object to sending them all to Guantanamo anyway, no ?"
I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but this is about the UK, isn't it? Not the USA.
If it is about the UK then the courts there have no say in when Congress is dissolved etc. Unlike courts in the US who seem to think that they can impose their judgements on people and companies in a foreign jurisdiction.
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 11:14 GMT 's water music
Re: "[these rules] do not undermine principles of justice and fairness"
So, now it is official : the land of Justice and Freedom has already shed the Freedom part and has now dispensed with Justice as well.
Now it'll all be National Security Letters, .... When is Congress going to be dissolved ? ...sending them all to Guantanamo......But for the fact that the USA is being run by companies now, ....
You are clear on which country the article was about right?
-
Wednesday 6th August 2014 06:31 GMT John Smith 19
@pascal monet
"Now it'll all be National Security Letters, secret tribunals and kangaroo courts. When is Congress going to be dissolved ? It's not like anybody would object to sending them all to Guantanamo anyway, no ?"
Yes, all very dramatic.
You did realize this was referring to the British Court of Appeal and the British Dept of BIS, right?
Oh you didn't.
-
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 20:24 GMT Gannon (J.) Dick
Re: Nothing to hide, nothing to fear...
The UK gov brought this on themselves.
We on the other side of the pond have had a fully implemented Military-Industrial Complex for years now. We flash a EULA, you drop a tonne of Pounds and ... done deal.
But, nooooooooooooooo, they had to grow their own. Austerity, frugality, freedom, dignaty, blah, blah, blah, I call it cheap.
-
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 10:25 GMT James 100
Re: AC obviously
"If you're a company, you're not subject to FoI requests."
I seem to remember there's some exception to that - if you're providing a public service with public funding. (My company does some government contracting, and there's certainly stuff in the contracts about complying with FOI requests in there: we can't just bin them and say we're a private company so they don't apply.)
As a taxpayer, it makes sense: the idea is we're supposed to be able to find out what's being done with our money, whether it's being used inside a government department or subcontracted to someone else. I don't recall ever actually receiving any, but we've definitely been told it's possible.
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 11:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: AC obviously
Not strictly true actually, the only companies directly subject to FOI are those wholly owned by a public authority/public authorities such as Manchester Airport Group or various Housing Depts that council's have hived off.
That said public authorities will often include clauses in contracts with suppliers to say the information relating to the company and their involvement in public contracts may be disclosed as part of a FOI request.
Even so you could refuse an FOI made to you as the Act doesnt apply to you, only the authority you are providing a service for.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 18:14 GMT Someone Else
OK, lets run this through the Universal Corporate BS Filter™ and see what comes out
Item 1:
However, a public interest test applies to both exemptions, meaning that if there is a greater public interest in disclosure than there is in withhold the information that information has to be disclosed. BIS had claimed that "the
publicbusiness interest lay in maintaining the exemption", according to the Court of Appeal ruling.Item 2:
Browning appealed BIS's decision to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the ICO originally ordered the department to disclose the information the journalist sought access to. However, the Commissioner reversed his position "having seen
some materialan envelope stuffed with cash disclosed to him" and the watchdog backed BIS' arguments to withhold the material as the department successfully appealed the disclosure order to an information rights tribunal.Item 3 (the killer):
The information rights tribunal concluded that there was a "very high likelihood of real harm to a large number of companies resulting from disclosure of their identities" and so ruled that the
publicfatass companies' interest favoured the withholding of the information by BIS from Browning.Re this last item: How the motherfuck can the "public" interest be served by withholding the identities of these companies who are doing business w/ Iran? (Hint: It can't). No, the only interests being served are those of the companies' PR departments, who would not have to do any additional work to try to salvage these fatass's reputations.
It's coming down to a choice between two rather messy alternatives: Revolution, or The Bomb.
-
Tuesday 5th August 2014 20:16 GMT JaitcH
I thought ...
secret courts aka 'star chambers' had been done away with a few hundred years ago.
Wikipedia says:
"The Star Chamber was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster from the late 15th century until 1641. It was made up of Privy Councillors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts would never convict them of their crimes.
Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
Of course, with today's super-injunctions both in the UK and other countries, it looks like it's back to the future.
-
Wednesday 6th August 2014 06:41 GMT John Smith 19
I smell a version of the justification of "Super injuctions"
And I can smell it from here.
Actually the "public interest" routine was trotted out by the UK govt during the "supergun" trial.
3 (of 4 involved) govt Ministers trotted out "Public Interest Immunity" certificates. 1 declined.
The "public interest" was in the public not knowing that a)At least one Director was reporting everything to the security services (and by extension the US and Israel). b) Everyone except Customs & Excise knew what the "gas pipe" was and where it was going, which was why they seized it.
My instinct is one of those companies is BAe and their CEO dropped in on call-me-Dave (as apparently unlike any CEO from a normal company he can) and said it would damage "British" IE BAe shareholder interests if that fact got out.
Paranoid?
Moi?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
