He went on to add “on the other hand you will not be surprised to learn that I
consider the content of his review to be seriously defective…..”
Complaint (from D418)
21. On 6 January 2022 the Appellant complained to the IC by section 50 FOIA. In
answer to the question “what could the public body do to resolve your complaint”
he wrote:“Disclose the entire Reindorf Report except for “very” limited redactions to remove
the names and identifying information of individuals other than senior staff, etc.”
22. The Complaint was supported by submissions and supplemented by a letter
dated 6 September 2022 (D431-D444) and then again on 7 September 2022
(D445 -D449). UoE provided information to the IC by letter dated 11 October
2022 (D455 -D471).
The DN (A1-A21)
23. On 27 October 2022 the IC issued the DN.
follows:-
The conclusion of the IC was as
1. The complainant has requested an unredacted version of a published report on
the cancellation of external speakers associated with a Centre for Criminology
seminar and a Holocaust Memorial Week – the ‘Reindorf Review’. The University of
Essex (‘the University’) disclosed some of the previously redacted information but
has continued to withhold the remaining redacted information under sections
36(2), 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA. These concern prejudice to effective conduct of
public affairs, personal data and information provided in confidence respectively.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
The University correctly applied section 36(2)(c) and/or section 40(2) and/or section
41(1) of FOIA to the information it is withholding and, where relevant, the public
interest favoured withholding this information.
The University’s handling of the request did not comply with section 10(1) of FOIA,
and its refusal did not comply with section 17(1).
3. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any corrective steps.”
24. Section 10(1) FOIA relates to timescales for a public authority to respond to a
FOIA request and section 17(1) deals with the information a public authority is
required to give to a requester in the event that a request is refused. We were
not required to consider these matters as part of the Appeal.
8