Gist was provided by UoE and the Appellant commented on the Gist on 12 July 2024. 16. The Appellant however also made an application (dated 12 July 2024) in which he sought a number of Directions in respect of the Gist. In summary he asserted that the Gist was inadequate and asked that UoE be required to provide more information. However for the reasons set out in the relevant Decision dated 19 August 2024 (and having considered his submissions, Barrett and Browning and rule 2 2009 Rules) the Appellant's Application was refused. The Request, Response and Internal Review 17. On 26 May 2021 the Appellant made a request to UoE for information pursuant to FOIA as follows “….I am requesting an unredacted (except for the deletion of individuals’ names) copy of the [the Report] …..” He says:“This report bears on issues of academic freedom and the freedom of expression, which are currently being hotly debated in the public arena (including a Bill now before Parliament) and which are of particular relevance to those of us who work at universities in the UK. It is manifestly in the public interest that this report be made publicly available. I praise the University of Essex for making part of this report publicly available. But in the version posted on the University website, the entire Facts and Evidence section (pages 4–38) is blacked out. How on earth are we supposed to evaluate the recommendations, if we know nothing about the events that gave rise to those recommendations?” 18. On 23 June 2021 UoE confirmed it held the information requested (C267). On 14 September 2021 UoE provided its Response to the Request (from C 296). In it, in summary, UoE said that, while since first publication the Report had been published with fewer redactions, some parts would remain redacted in reliance on the exemptions provided in sections 41(1), 40(2), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) FOIA. 19. The Appellant requested a review of the Response on 9 August 2021 (273-287). The detailed outcome of UoE’s review was notified to the Appellant on 12 November 2021 with appendices (C342 to C415). No change of position emerged from the review but UoE did conclude that certain aspects of its Response could have been better and issued an apology (C350). 20. The Appellant said of this review “It is clear that Professor Woollard expended considerably effort in carrying out this review. Please express to him my gratitude.” 7