I've just been reading an article in Freedom of Information (Volume 7 Issue 4 March/April 2011) in which readers are taken back through some of the basics of the Freedom of Information Act.
The laughter (or maybe it was a hysterical response to the idea) was caused by a reminder to authorities responding to a request for information that the right to delay whilst seeking clarification of the information required should not be obtuse.
To illustrate:
- In 2005 the Inland Revenue received a request for information about five occurrences which the applicant described as “failed standards”. The Inland Revenue responded that it did not have any information about “failed standards” because there had not been any “failures” by it.
The Tribunal evidently took the view that this was an obtuse reading of the request and decided that any reasonable public authority would have responded to the request on the basis that it related to the five specific occurrences identified by the applicant. (Barber v IC; EA/2005/004).
The idea that no mistakes are ever made, or maybe it is merely that the mistakes that are made are not a failure of standards, is ludicrous.
0 comments:
Post a Comment