Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Spy Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
International Law
: Spy BlogICO Decision Notice FS50198733 - Terrorism Act 2000 s44 stop and search Authorisations
ICO Decision Notice FS50198733 - Home Office: Terrorism Act 2000 s44 stop and search Authorisations:
Given the recent European Court of Human Rights judgement about the controversial and widely abused Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 "stop and search" without "reasonable suspicion" legal powers, and, without any measurable positive effect on terrorism, we think that the Home Office and the Information Commissioner's Office are both very wrong in their decision to refuse our modest Freedom of Information Act request.
More comments on this Decision Notice soon, when we have some feedback from our expert friends.
Reference: FS50198733
Information Commissioner's OfficeFreedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
Decision Notice Date: 8 February 2010Public Authority: Address:
The Home Office
Seacote Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P4DF[...]
Summary
The complainant requested copies of all Authorisations for the power to stop and search issued under the Terrorism Act 2000. During the investigation, the request was refined as being for certain information contained within those Authorisations.
The public authority refused to release any information citing the exemptions at section
23 (Information supplied by or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), section
24 (National security) and section 31 (Law enforcement). The complainant did not contest any information withheld by virtue of section 23.The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption at section 24(1) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He finds that this exemption applies to all the remaining information sought by the complainant so the exemption at section 31 has not been further considered.
The Commissioner has also identified procedural breaches which are outlined in the Notice below. The complaint is therefore partly upheld.
[...]
59. As cited in paragraph 34 above, "... 'national security' means the security of the United Kingdom and its people". The Commissioner is of the opinion that releasing the requested information would cause specific and real threats to national security. He believes that the information could be used by terrorists to support and influence their activity. He therefore believes that any advantages gained by further informing the public would be significantly outweighed by the factors for protecting the public by maintaining the exemption. The complaint is therefore not upheld.
60. As the Commissioner finds that all of the remaining requested information (to
which section 23 does not apply) is exempt by virtue of section 24(1) he has not gone on to consider the exemption at section 31(1 )(a), (b) and (c).[..]
The decision
66. The Commissioner's decision is that the public authority dealt with the following elements of the request in accordance with the requirements of the Act:
- the requested information was properly withheld under the exemption at section 24(1) of the Act.
67. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the following elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the Act:
- in failing to provide a response compliant with section 1(1 )(a) within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the public authority breached section 10(1);
- in exceeding the statutory time limit for providing a response the public authority breached section 17(1).
Steps required
68. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Other matters
69. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern.
[...]
Information Notice75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.
76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard.
[...]
Download the OCR / edited text of FOIA Decision Notice FS50198733 as a Rich text Format document.
ICO Decision Notice FS50198733 (.rtf)
Full post as published by Spy Blog on February 10, 2010 (boomark / email).
Rightwing Extremism
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
How to Stop Home Foreclosure
Bankruptcy can Stop Foreclosure
Toyota Recalls 2000-2003 Tundra Vehicles
Toyota Recalls 2000-2003 Tundra Vehicles
Strip Search Class Action Settled for $900,000
Strip Search Class Action Settled for $900,000
Strip-Search Lawsuit Settled for $1.1 Million
Strip-Search Lawsuit Settled for $1.1 Million
Canadian Government
seeks new law enabling them to search your laptop
Two Kentucky Counties
settle strip search class action lawsuits
Baltimore Strip Search Class Action
Judge Gives Go-ahead

UK police search powers illegal: human rights court
Government Charges Two Former USF Students With Terrorism Counts
Lawyer of the Week: Corinna Ferguson
Instead of scrapping stop and search we should rethink its use
PATRIOT Act Used for Non-Terrorism Cases








