Decision 031/2009 Mr L and the Scottish Prison Service. Policy relating to Asperger s syndrome. Reference No: Decision Date: 18 March 2009

Similar documents
Decision 202/2011 Ms Geraldine Bell and Glasgow City Council

Decision 087/2009 Mr Murdo Gordon and the Scottish Court Service

2. In July 2013, prior to the Colleges merger, Mr K submitted a complaint to the then Clydebank College.

Decision Notice. Decision 005/2015: Mr M and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Decision Notice. Decision 139/2016: Mr H and the Scottish Prison Service. Policy and procedures. Reference No: Decision Date: 28 June 2016

Decision 055/2009 Mr N and South Lanarkshire Council. Inspection report and telephone note. Reference No: Decision Date: 18 May 2009

Decision 267/2013 Mr Jonathan Flynn and Perth and Kinross Council

Decision 024/2007 Mr Charles Traynor and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police

Decision 100/2013 Mr Alistair Sloan and the Scottish Ministers. Refusal to confirm or deny whether information is held

Decision Notice. Decision 181/2018: Mr G and Community Safety Glasgow

Decision 207/2013 Mr and Mrs B and the Scottish Court Service

Decision 257/2013 Mr N and Perth and Kinross Council. Breadalbane Academy Secondary School fund

Decision 287/2013 Mr Stewart V. Mackenzie and Perth and Kinross Council

Decision 192/2006 Mr David Sharpe and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police

Decision 025/2010 Mr Peter Petersen and Grampian Joint Police Board

Decision 100/2010 Mr John McClelland and City of Edinburgh Council

Decision Notice. Decision 083/2018: Ms L and Edinburgh College

Decision 073/2014 Mr Derek Cooney and the Scottish Court Service

Decision 122/2010 Mr Kevin McIntyre and Clackmannanshire Council

Applicant: Ms Suzi Eskandari Authority: Scottish Children s Reporter Administration Case No: and Decision Date: 31 October 2007

Decision 059/2011 Ms Agnes McWhinnie and City of Edinburgh Council

Decision 009/2009 Ms Jean Kesson and Glasgow City Council. Workforce Pay and Benefits Review. Reference No: Decision Date: 6 February 2009

Failure to respond to request and request for a review within timescales

Decision 215/2013 Mr Nigel Dale and Aberdeen City Council. Social work policies and procedures. Reference No: Decision Date: 2 October 2013

Decision 254/2013 Mr Peter Mortimer and Glasgow City Council

Decision 076/ Mr David Laing and the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary

Decision 103/2010 Ms Jane Saren and City of Edinburgh Council

Decision Notice. Decision 176/2016: Mr Roy Mackay and Scottish Borders Council. Archiving of s

Decision 177/2010 Ms Matilda Gifford and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police

Decision 221/2010 Mr Gavin Catto and Aberdeen City Council. Failure to respond to a request and request for review

Decision Notice. Decision 106/2018: Mr C and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. Detention of an individual

Decision 053/2011 Mr George Green and East Lothian Council. Purchase of audio-visual equipment. Reference No: Decision Date: 14 March 2011

Decision Notice. Decision 047/2018: James Donnelly and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Decision 273/2013 Mr Colin McLeod and Dundee City Council. Marchbanks recycling centre. Reference No: Decision Date: 3 December 2013

Decision 012/2008 Councillor Paul Welsh and North Lanarkshire Council

Decision 106/2012 Dr Nick McKerrell and Glasgow Caledonian University

Decision 136/2009 Fauldhouse Community Council and West Lothian Council. Submission to a legal adviser regarding a right of way dispute

Statistical information on complications and injuries associated with forceps delivery

Decision 092/2010 Mr N and South Lanarkshire Council. Whether request vexatious. Reference No: Decision Date: 14 June 2010

Decision 010/2011 Mr Keith Knowles and the Scottish Court Service

Decision 120/2009 Mr Graeme Cassie and Midlothian Council. Procurement and conversion of Parkhead Lodge, Penicuik

Applicant: Mr Norman Brown Authority: The Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police Case No: and Decision Date: 26 July 2007

Decision 198/2014: Mr Michael McGovern and Glasgow City Council

Decision 119/2007 Ms N and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service

Psychometric tests used during Sex Offender Treatment Programme

Decision 208/2006 Ms X and Scottish Borders Council

Decision 120/2007 Mr Russell Findlay and the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary

Decision 021/2005 Mr Michael Collie and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service

Decision 063/2012 Mr Drew Cochrane of the Largs and Millport News and the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police

Decision 166/2013 Mr David Scott and Historic Scotland. Old Beacon, North Ronaldsay. Reference No: Decision Date: 9 August 2013

Decision 070/2005 Ms R and the Scottish Tourist Board (operating as VisitScotland)

Decision 019/2011 Mr Allan Clark and Glasgow City Council. Names and addresses of Glasgow s Community Councillors

Decision 036/2007 Ms Sandra Uttley and the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police

Decision Notice. Decision 206/2018: Mr M and Aberdeenshire Council

Decision 067/2006 Mr George Harper & Perth and Kinross Council

Decision 156/2011 Mr Ralph Lucas and the University of Glasgow

DISCLOSURE POLICY. 3.1 The Board of the Commission approved this policy on 19 December 2014.

Section 25: Information otherwise accessible Exemption Briefing

Decision 096/2006 Mr George Waddell and South Lanarkshire Council

Freedom of Information

Schools Subject Access Request Procedures

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

Environmental Information Regulations Decision Notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Decision Notice. Decision 07/2019: Department of Corrections. Records related to sex offenders: failure to decide within statutory timeframes

COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SUBMISSION Building (Scotland) Act 2003 Submission under section 17(1) and (7) of a completion certificate

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

2013 No. POLICE. The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2013

Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2]

I refer to your recent request for information which has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

SCOTTISH AMBULANCE SERVICE CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Approved: Scottish Ambulance Service Board Date January Review Date: January 2016

Information exempt from the subject access right (section 40(4) and

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Park View Primary School

Transport (Scotland) Bill

II REGISTRATION OF MINISTRIES ACT (ACT II 2017) (AS AMENDED BY ACTS VIII AND XIV 2018) Edinburgh, 20 May 2017, Session I

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Data protection. Guide to the Law Enforcement Provisions

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice

QUARTERLY UPDATE ON STATUTORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND INVESTIGATIONS

AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2]

The Campaign for Freedom of Information

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (SECTION 50) DECISION NOTICE. Dated 5 June Public Authority: Newry and Mourne Health and Social Services Trust

PROCUREMENT REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2]

GENERAL PROTOCOL FOR SHARING INFORMATION BETWEEN AGENCIES IN KINGSTON UPON HULL AND THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Environmental Information Regulations Decision Notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) Decision Notice

AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

18 March To all civil legal aid practitioners

Transcription:

Policy relating to Asperger s syndrome Reference No: 200801402 Decision Date: 18 March 2009 Kevin Dunion Scottish Information Commissioner Kinburn Castle Doubledykes Road St Andrews KY16 9DS Tel: 01334 464610

Summary Mr L requested from the (SPS) any information it held relating to an offence intervention programme for adults with Asperger s syndrome (AS). The SPS did not respond to the initial request. In response to Mr L s request for review, it argued that it did hold some information falling within the scope of the request, but that it considered it exempt from disclosure in terms of sections 25, 30(b)(ii), 36 and 38 of FOISA. Following this review, Mr L remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had been entitled to withhold the information from Mr L under the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA on the basis that the information was his own personal data. As a result, he did not require the SPS to take any action. Relevant statutory provisions and other sources Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA): sections 1(1), (4) and (6) (General entitlement); 2(1)(a) and (2)(e)(i) (Effect of exemptions) and 38(1)(a) (Personal information) Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA): section 1(1) (Basic interpretative provisions) (definition of "personal data") The full text of each of the statutory provisions cited above is reproduced in the Appendix to this decision. The Appendix forms part of this decision. Background 1. On 9 June 2008, Mr L wrote to the (SPS) requesting the following information: Copies of any correspondence relating to the development/delivery of an offence intervention programme for adults with Asperger s syndrome (AS), or relating to the possibility of [his] transfer to an AS-specific facility which could provide such programmes. 2. The SPS did not respond to this request and, on 8 July 2008, Mr L wrote to the SPS requesting a review of its failure to comply with required timescales and that it provide a response. 2

3. The SPS notified Mr L of the outcome of its review on 18 August 2008, and apologised for its failure to respond to Mr L s original request within the required timescale. It provided Mr L with some documents, but it withheld others, arguing that they were exempt from disclosure in terms of sections 30(b)(ii), 36 and 38 of FOISA. The SPS also noted that it had not provided copies of correspondence where Mr L had been the author, the principal addressee or a copy recipient on the basis that such documents were otherwise accessible to him and so section 25 (Information otherwise accessible) of FOISA was applicable. However, the SPS indicated that if Mr L did not have access to these documents, it would provide copies to him on request. 4. On 26 September 2008, Mr L wrote to the Commissioner, stating that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the SPS s review and applying to the Commissioner for a decision in terms of section 47(1) of FOISA. 5. The application was validated by establishing that Mr L had made a request for information to a Scottish public authority and had applied to the Commissioner for a decision only after asking the authority to review its response to that request. Investigation 6. The SPS is an Executive Agency of the Scottish Ministers and a letter was sent to the Ministers' Freedom of Information Unit on 15 October 2008, in line with agreed procedures, giving notice that an application had been received from Mr L and that an investigation into the matter had commenced. The Ministers were asked to provide the Commissioner with any information withheld from the applicant. (Subsequent references to submissions etc. being received from the SPS are therefore references to submissions etc. made by the Ministers' Freedom of Information Unit on behalf of the SPS.) 7. The SPS responded with the information requested and indicated that it was withholding the information in terms of section 30(b) and 36 of FOISA. The case was then allocated to an investigating officer. 8. The investigating officer subsequently contacted the SPS, giving it an opportunity to provide comments on the application (as required by section 49(3)(a) of FOISA) and asking it to respond to specific questions. In particular, the SPS was asked to detail the searches it had undertaken in response to the request and to justify its reliance on any provisions of FOISA it considered applicable to the information requested. 9. The investigating officer also contacted Mr L and invited his comments on the public interest as it applied to the exemptions contained in section 36 and 30(b) of FOISA. Mr L responded to this letter and provided his views on the public interest as it applied to the information he was seeking. 3

10. When the SPS subsequently responded to the questions raised by the investigating officer, it withdrew its previous reliance on the exemptions contained in section 30(b) and 36 of FOISA and noted that it was now solely relying on section 38(1)(a) of FOISA to withhold information from Mr L, on the basis that it constituted his own personal data. 11. On receipt of this response from the SPS, the investigating officer contacted Mr L and advised him that the SPS was now only applying the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA to the withheld information. Mr L was also advised that, having reviewed the information, the investigating officer considered it likely that the Commissioner would uphold the exemption, as the information withheld did appear to be his own personal data. 12. In response, Mr L acknowledged that much of the information he had requested would be his own personal data, but he argued that the SPS would hold additional information on AS that does not relate directly to him, but would fall within the scope of his request. In particular, Mr L indicated that he expected there to be correspondence between the SPS and third parties which might discuss offence intervention programmes for prisoners with AS. Mr L also confirmed that he had made a subject access request under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) for his own personal data on 23 October 2008. 13. In further correspondence, the investigating officer asked the SPS for detailed evidence of the searches it had undertaken, seeking copies of any correspondence it held that was between itself and the third parties named by Mr L. 14. The SPS responded to these queries and provided the investigating officer with copies of correspondence exchanged between itself and the third parties named by Mr L. Commissioner s analysis and findings 15. In coming to a decision on this matter, the Commissioner has considered all of the withheld information and the submissions made to him by both SPS and is satisfied that no matter of relevance has been overlooked. Scope of the request 4

16. The SPS has withheld two documents from Mr L in terms of section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. The Commissioner notes that in the outcome of its review on 18 August 2008, the SPS advised Mr L that it was also withholding other correspondence from him in terms of section 25 of FOISA, on the basis that these documents were otherwise accessible to him as he was either the sender, the primary recipient or the co-recipient. However, in its review the SPS also advised Mr L that it was willing to provide him with copies of this correspondence, if he required it to do so. 17. Mr L did not raise this matter in his application to the Commissioner, and during the investigation he has expressed no dissatisfaction with the application of section 25(1) by the SPS. On this basis (and taking into account the fact that the SPS has stated that it is willing to provide copies of any correspondence it is withholding in terms of section 25 to Mr L) the Commissioner will not consider, in this decision, any documents withheld by the SPS on the grounds of section 25 of FOISA. 18. During the investigation, the SPS also provided the Commissioner with copies of correspondence exchanged between itself and third parties named by Mr L. Mr L had indicated that he expected the SPS to hold such correspondence and it was his view that this correspondence was likely to fall within the scope of his request and that it would not constitute his own personal data. The Commissioner has carefully considered the correspondence supplied by the SPS and it is his view that these documents do not fall within the scope of Mr L s request and cannot be considered in this investigation. The Commissioner has reached this view as the correspondence post-dates Mr L s request and so is outwith the scope of his request. (In terms of section 1(4) of FOISA, the information which an applicant is entitled to be given is that held by a public authority at the time the request is received.) 19. Consequently, this investigation will only consider the two documents withheld by the SPS in terms of section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. Section 38(1)(a) Personal information of the applicant 20. Section 38(1)(a) of FOISA contains an absolute exemption in relation to personal data of which the applicant is the data subject. This means that it is not subject to the public interest test set out in section 2(1) of FOISA. 21. This exemption exists under FOISA because individuals have a separate right make a request for their own personal information (commonly known as a subject access request) under section 7 of the DPA. The DPA will therefore usually determine whether a person has a right to information about themselves. Therefore, the effect of the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA is not to deny individuals a right of access to information about themselves, but to ensure that the right is exercised under the DPA and not under FOISA. 22. "Personal data" is defined in section 1(1) of the DPA, which is reproduced in the Appendix. 5

23. The Commissioner has reviewed the two withheld documents and he is satisfied that both comprise the personal data of Mr L. The data within the two documents focusses on Mr L and is biographical of him in a significant sense, and consequently it relates to him. Therefore, it is the Commissioner s view that the information is absolutely exempt from disclosure under FOISA as it is the personal data of Mr L. 24. Should Mr L wish to pursue access to these documents, the Commissioner would advise him to do so via the complaints process provided for under the DPA. DECISION The Commissioner finds that, in withholding information which was exempt under section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, the complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by Mr L. Appeal Should either Mr L or the wish to appeal against this decision, there is an appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law only. Any such appeal must be made within 42 days after the date of intimation of this decision notice. Margaret Keyse Head of Enforcement 18 March 2009 6

Appendix Relevant statutory provisions Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1 General entitlement (1) A person who requests information from a Scottish public authority which holds it is entitled to be given it by the authority. (4) The information to be given by the authority is that held by it at the time the request is received, except that, subject to subsection (5), any amendment or deletion which would have been made, regardless of the receipt of the request, between that time and the time it gives the information may be made before the information is given. (6) This section is subject to sections 2, 9, 12 and 14. 2 Effect of exemptions (1) To information which is exempt information by virtue of any provision of Part 2, section 1 applies only to the extent that (a) the provision does not confer absolute exemption; and (2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection 1, the following provisions of Part 2 (and no others) are to be regarded as conferring absolute exemption (e) in subsection (1) of section 38 (i) paragraphs (a), (c) and (d); and 7

38 Personal information (1) Information is exempt information if it constitutes- (a) personal data of which the applicant is the data subject; Data Protection Act 1998 1 Basic interpretative provisions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified (a) (b) from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual; 8