Office of the Advocate General for Scotland
| Case Outcome | Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld |
| Subject Matter | Local government |
| Court | Information Commissioner (UK) |
| Record Number | IC-129904-C3Y0 |
| Date | 22 August 2022 |
| Respondent | Office of the Advocate General for Scotland |
Reference: IC-129904-C3Y0
1
Decision notice
Date: 22 August 2022
Public Authority: Office of the Advocate General for Scotland
Address: Queen Elizabeth House
Edinburgh
EH8 8FT
Decision (including any steps ordered)
1. The complainant has requested from the Office of the Advocate General
for Scotland (‘OAGS’) copies of all diary entries for the Advocate
General for the period 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021. OAGS refused
the request under section 14 of FOIA, on the grounds that it was
vexatious, due to burden.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that OAGS was entitled to rely on section
14 of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that it
complied with section 16 (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of
FOIA.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Request and response
4. On 19 July 2021, the complainant wrote to OAGS and requested
information in the following terms:
“I should be grateful if, pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland
would provide the full content of all entries in the diary for the
Advocate General for the period 1 January 2021 until 30 June 2021.”
5. OAGS responded on 17 August 2021, refusing the request on the
grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning at section 14(1) of
Reference: IC-129904-C3Y0
2
FOIA. It said the request covered a lengthy period, had no clear
purpose, appeared to be a ‘fishing expedition’ and that compliance with
it would cause unwarranted and disproportionate disruption to its work.
6. The complainant requested an internal review on 20 August 2021,
declining to give his reasons for making the request. He argued that the
request would not be overly burdensome to comply with and that
disclosure would serve the public interest in transparency in public life.
He noted that OAGS had not suggested how he might refine or reduce
the scope of his request in order to reduce the workload involved in
complying with it.
7. OAGS responded on 16 September 2021, upholding its decision to
refuse the request under section 14:
“The request covers a significantly long period of time and the diary
will contain high volumes of information for extraction and
consideration against exemptions. There are health and safety, GDPR
and national security considerations to be weighed alongside the
request. You have indicated that you do not intend to provide any
context for your request to allow me to consider all the relevant
circumstances, as I am required to do. You have indicated that you do
not consider your request to be a “fishing expedition”, but I am
unable to judge that objectively. In addition, you have said that your
request is not fairly categorised as a broad request relying on “pot
luck”. Once again I cannot judge that objectively without context.
If you wish to reconsider and provide context for your request then I
would be happy to undertake a further review, armed with the context
of the request.
As part of this review, a sampling exercise has been carried out, and I
am satisfied that without further specification the exercise would
entail a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption and so the
information is exempt under section 14 of FOIA.”
Scope of the case
8. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 17 September 2021 to
complain about the way his request for information had been handled.
He disagreed with the decision to categorise his request as vexatious.
requiring the information were not relevant to any consideration of the
request’s value.
To continue reading
Request your trial