“If the Tribunal finds that it needs further submissions from the parties prior to making a fair determination, the Tribunal may write to the parties requesting written submissions in relation to any specific matters or requesting that a short hearing takes place.”
“(o) in relation to information held by any public authority not falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (n), means— (i) a Minister of the Crown, (ii) the public authority, if authorised for the purposes of this section by a Minister of the Crown, or (iii) any officer or employee of the public authority who is authorised for the purposes of this section by a Minister of the Crown.”
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual … (3) ‘Identifiable living individual’ means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to – (a) an identifier, such as a name, an identification number, location data, or an online identifier, Or (b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of the individual.” (a) an identifier, such as a name, an identification number, location data, or an online identifier, Or (b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of the individual.”
“…. anonymised data which does not lead to the identification of a living individual does not constitute personal data.”
“Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject.”
“The principle which runs through all these cases and the many other cases which were cited, is that a man must be able to consult his lawyer in confidence, since otherwise he might hold back half the truth. The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of the particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests.”
“public interest in a party being able to obtain informed legal advice in confidence prevails over the public interest in all relevant material being available to courts when deciding cases and period.”
“LPP [legal professional privilege] is a fundamental human right long established in the common law. It is a necessary corollary of the right of any person to obtain skilled advice about the law. Such advice cannot be effectively obtained unless the client is able to put all the facts before the adviser without fear that they may afterwards be disclosed and used to its prejudice.”
“It also common ground, however, that the task of the tribunal, ultimately, is to apply the test formulated in section 22B. A person seeking information from a government department does not have to demonstrate that “exceptional circumstances” exist which justify disclosure. Section 42 is not to be elevated “by the back door” to an absolute exemption. Ms Proops submits in her skeleton argument, it is for the public authority to demonstrate on the balance of probability, that the scales weigh in favour of the information being withheld. That is as true of a case in which Section 42 is being considered as it is in relation to a case which involves consideration of any other qualified exemption. Under FOIA, section 42 cases are different simply because the inbuilt public interest in non-disclosure itself carries significant weight which will always have to be considered in the balancing exercise once it is established that legal professional privilege attaches to the documents in question.”
“(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it. (2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by the subsection (1) in relation to that case.”
“Please provide copies: (a) of all communications passing between the JAC (or any person on its behalf) leading to the grant of the authorisation on10 October 2022 .” (a) of all communications passing between the JAC (or any person on its behalf) leading to the grant of the authorisation on10 October 2022 .”
“As can be seen from the citation of the legal authorities regarding legal professional privilege, there is a strong element of public interest in built into the privilege itself. At least equally strong countervailing considerations would need to be adduced to override that inbuilt public interest. It may well be that in certain cases, of which this might have been one, were the matter not still live, for example, where the legal advice was stale, issues might arise as to whether or not the public interest favouring disclosure should be given particular weight.”
“I have borne in mind the importance of this case and the public interest in maintaining a scrupulously fair and transparent judicial appointment process.”
“Please provide copies: (b) Copies (sic) of all FOIAs and answers given by the JAC prior to the grant of the authorisation where the “qualified person” exemption was used or specific links to them under your disclosure programme. A link to your disclosure log is not enough. I seek specifically those requests where the JAC used sec. 36. This should not be an exemption under sec. 12. You should, as a matter of best practice, keep a record of when you have used sec. 36 or any exemptions.” (b) Copies (sic) of all FOIAs and answers given by the JAC prior to the grant of the authorisation where the “qualified person” exemption was used or specific links to them under your disclosure programme. A link to your disclosure log is not enough. I seek specifically those requests where the JAC used sec. 36. This should not be an exemption under sec. 12. You should, as a matter of best practice, keep a record of when you have used sec. 36 or any exemptions.”
“internal and external communications regarding myself…. regarding recruitment and selection processes”
“Please provide details of his or her current terms and conditions of employment.”
“I believe that releasing this information has the potential to cause both harm and distress to the individual and I see no wider public interest in this information being provided. It is also my view that this individual has a reasonable expectation that this information would be kept private and not provided to the wider public. The nature of the disclosure would likely cause damage under stress to the individual concerned and outweighs any legitimate interest in disclosure.”
“Grades 6 and 7 civil servants tend to be experienced officials with significant policy responsibilities.”
“You must consider the likely consequences of disclosure in each case. Personal information must not be used in ways that has unjustified adverse effects on the employee concerned. Although your employee may regard the disclosure of personal information about them as an intrusion into their privacy, often this may not be a persuasive factor on its own, particularly if the information is about their public role rather than their private life. You must be able to argue that adverse consequences would result from disclosure of the personal data. You must show that there is a connection between the disclosure of the requested information and the adverse consequences. For example, you have a strong argument for refusing a subsequent disclosure, if a previous disclosure of similar information has led to the targeting of individuals.2 You must therefore consider the nature of the information and judge the level of distress or damage likely to be caused. The greater this is, the more likely that the interests of the employee will override any legitimate interests in disclosure.”
“Seniority It is reasonable to expect that you disclose more information about senior public authority employees than more junior ones. Senior employees should expect their posts to carry a greater level of accountability, since they are likely to be responsible for major policy decisions and the expenditure of public funds. For example, a junior employee who is not accountable for their submissions to a senior government minister has no expectation that their name will be disclosed in response to an FOI request. However, the terms ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ are relative. It is not possible to set an absolute level across the public sector below which personal information is not released. It is always necessary to consider the nature of the information and the responsibilities of the employee in question.”
“Please let me know the amount of legal costs (actual or notional incurred by the JAC) in dealing with the costs of such claims, complaints and appeals, setting out separately profit costs (actual or notional), counsels fees, and all disbursements.”
“This is because there is a good likelihood that the information requested, ie, the situational questions, specimen answers and scoring framework, may be used or referred to, in part or in full, in future judicial appointment exercises.”
“If we were to disclose the requested papers and/or information, it is argued that the JAC would be prejudiced in its effective conduct of public affairs as follows: • Should the questions/material and/or marking schedules be disclosed, the JAC will be unable to use any part or parts of these in any subsequent exercise, whether in their original or an amended format, as this would provide any applicant who had previously sat the questions with a significant advantage over others. • JAC officials will be inhibited in the delivery of future exercises for this and other jurisdictions if judicial colleagues are less willing to become involved or inhibited in the scope of their involvement in the development of situational questions, as at present they are the single point of provision for this aspect of the JAC selection process.”
“Should the questions/material and/or marking schedules be disclosed, the JAC will be unable to use any part or parts of these in any subsequent exercise, whether in their original or an amended format, as this would provide any applicant who had previously sat the questions with a significant advantage over others.”
“This question concerns information sought by the Appellant relating to the race, background, and other characteristics of candidates (sought in completely anonymised form) in relation to the selection exercises referred to in the FOIA.”
“Despite asking for assistance from the JAC (to supply information in a different format), it was refused, including on review”
“I have visited section of our website and have downloaded and checked the information contained within the spreadsheet. I can confirm that a “drop down menu” is Available from Selby One in tab 2.2. The selling question is highlighted. Redan is titled “Legal Exercises completed in 2022/ 23”
“(d) Please let me know if Dr Jarvis resigned or retired as CEO in June 2023. Please provide all communication leading to his resignation or retirement, including his letter of resignation or retirement. (e) Did Dr Jarvis retire or resign before his term as CEO had ended? (f) Does he continue? To be employed or otherwise engaged or continued to have any association. (direct or indirect) with the JAC?”
“Please supply any documents pertaining to discussion of the retirement, either via email, HR records or texts.”
“Please provide all communication leading to his resignation or retirement, including his letter of resignation or retirement.”
“28 ….any properly informed person will know that information held by a public authority is at risk of disclosure in the public interest.”
“Please provide details of all other costs incurred by the JAC in defending claims, complaints or appeals of whatever nature, whether or not relating to a decision not to appoint an unsuccessful candidate in the last five years1 Jan 2019 to30 June 2023 , other than those already provided in your reply.”
“a) Has the information commissioner [IC] been informed of this? b) If he has been informed, please state how. c) If the IC were informed in writing, please let us have all communication passing between the JAC or any person on behalf of the JAC and the IC, both leading to the IC being informed and subsequently up to and including the date when you send your response to this request., including any advice or guidance given to the JC by the IC to remedy these situations. d) If he were informed orally, please state when and what he was told and any communications. (whether oral or in writing) passing by or between the JAC and the icy. If the IC were not informed, please state why. If this was based on advice received from the JAC lawyers, please provide details of that advice.”
“a) Has the information commissioner [IC] been informed of this? b) If he has been informed, please state how. c) If the IC were informed in writing, please let us have all communication passing between the Jac or any person on behalf of the JAC and the IC, both leading to the IC being informed and subsequently up to and including the date when you send your response to this request., including any advice or guidance given to the JC by the IC to remedy these situations. d) If he were informed orally, please state when and what he was told and any communications. (whether oral or in writing) passing by or between the JAC and the icy. If the IC were not informed, please state why. If this was based on advice received from the JAC lawyers, please provide details of that advice.”
“(4) Does the JAC consider that it is required to inform any other body about (the use of the section 36 exemption without authorisation), such as the Ministry of Justice? If it is, please provide evidence that it has. (5) If the JAC has obtained legal advice in relation to the above, please provide full details of that advice.”