Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious requests

Copyright, Trade Marks, Patents, Information Law etc

Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious requests

Postby Goldensyrup » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:45 pm

Panopticon states has that the Supreme Court has refused Mr Dransfield permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning vexatious requests under section 14(1) FOIA. This represents the end of that important piece of litigation. The Supreme Court also ruled that the issue of European law raised in the application for permission was “irrelevant”. It is unclear from the refusal of permission what that issue was, or what it could have been in the circumstances.

Dransfield is still waiting for a copy of the refusal and reasons.

http://panopticonblog.com/2015/12/17/dr ... ourt-game/

http://blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#home
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby dls » Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:32 pm

Is this helpful litigation. Genuine question . .
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12088
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby Goldensyrup » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:26 pm

I believe Dransfield considers that the consistent use by the ICO and Public Authorities of GIA /3037/2012 as a wider conspiracy by the ICO and that they are acting as gatekeepers for the government. Since the CoA decision, S14 ICO upheld decisions seem to have massively increased in numbers in the last couple of years. If it is becoming more difficult to obtain information by way of the FOIA then I think the wider public should be concerned.
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby atticus » Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:01 pm

User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby dls » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:18 am

If it is becoming more difficult to obtain information by way of the FOIA then I think the wider public should be concerned.


Not necessarily. The Acts have been very useful, but are at great risk of becoming a disproportionate burden on authorities. Noting up the ICO case law regularly, I see time and again circumstances suggesting exactly that it is abused. Personal vendettas seem common. Half wit and lazy journalists looking for a manufactured headline are also common (see the BBC fairly regularly).

I have no way of assessing just what the balance is, but the Act represents a fairly blunt nosed and artificial attempt to transcribe a very vague and general feeling that 'we ought to know' into law.

Discussions here have suggested an unrealistic view of the cost of complying with these requests.

To be fair the cases also reflect some particular authorities who treat requests with general contempt.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12088
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby Goldensyrup » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:46 pm

There is no doubt that certain individuals such as Alan 'Dransfield' have become a disproportionate burden on PB's. It is my view that a certain degree of that burden is linked to a public body's level of openness and transparency. When a PB does not want to divulge lawfully information that it should divulge and the requester pursues via the ICO etc, then it is the PB who disproportionately burdens themselves, the requester and the ICO.

I have seen some of the interchanges between Dransfield (he has his own blog) and Devon CC (and others), and I can see why Dransfield becomes frustrated and doesn't let go.

In December 2014, I asked a Local Authority for copies of their minutes of meetings of a particular department (probably half a dozen sets of minutes in total) for the past 12 months. At first they stated they would send them. When they didn't, they then completely ignored a request for internal review and subsequent reminders. The ICO were then brought in to assist beginning March 2015. They informed me that their investigation would take six months.

The LA then decided to say that every single word in the minutes requested was now subject to section 43 (which beggars belief). The ICO responded to me that : Section 43 can be applied outside the 20 working day time for compliance BUT its application must be based on circumstances present within that time . As I write the ICO have still not concluded a decision notice. I accept that it is possible for S43 to apply to certain parts of minutes but not every morsel as a blanket approach.

If PB's were more transparent (rather than the contempt you suggest DLS) then their burden and that of others would be reduced.
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby atticus » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:22 pm

Goldensyrup wrote:... certain individuals such as Alan 'Dransfield' ...
is Dransfield not his real name?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Game over in the UK for Dransfield - S14 Vexatious reque

Postby Goldensyrup » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:11 am

Yes it is and I simply highlighted his surname or case is he is widely known and added his Christian name.

Permission was refused by Lords Clarke / Wilson / Carnwath in the Supreme Court on the 14th December 2015 for Dransfield to appeal the Court of Appeal decision ref C3/2014/1855 Dransfield v ICO, because the application by Dransfield did not raise an arguable point of law.

Dransfield also argued on a point of European Law, which was also rejected as being an irrelevant question.

It is a safe bet that he will now further his quest in the European Courts.
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm


Return to Intellectual Property

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests