Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Freedom of information and the Duchy of Cornwall

Freedom of information and the Duchy of Cornwall

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
The National Archives, The Duchy of Cornwall
and Freedom of Information Act 2000. The experience of one researcher by John Kirkhope.
The National Archives, The Duchy of Cornwall
and Freedom of Information Act 2000. The experience of one researcher by John Kirkhope.

More info:

Published by: The Cornish Republican on Nov 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The National Archives The Duchy of Cornwall and Freedom of Information Act 2000
The experience of one researcher
 I am a post graduate student at the University of Plymouth who has just submitted a thesis for consideration entitled “The Duchy of Cornwall – A Feudal Remnant?” As part of my investigations I spent a great deal of time exploring The National Archives (TNA) records maintained at Kew. I came across a closed file “IR 40/16619 – Liability of the Duchy of Cornwall to tax: covering dates 1960-62”. The tax status of the Duchy of Cornwall was one focus on my research so I requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) that the file be opened.
The Initial Request 
 I sent my request for the closed file to be opened on 16
 February 2010. TNA advised me on 30
 March 2010 that the file was exempt from disclosure under FOIA sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). I asked on 10
 April 2010 for an internal review and received a response on 19
  August 2010 in which the original decision was confirmed. FOIA section 10 provides a reply should be sent by the public authority within 20 working days. It  will be observed that the TNA replies exceeded the statutory provisions.
 I would note that I have made a large number of requests to various public authorities in connection with my thesis and, with the exception of Her Majesties  Revenues and Customs (HMRC), in no case have I received a response within the statutorily prescribed limits.
I complained to the Information Commissioner (ICO) on 4
 September 2010 about the way my request had been handled. Eleven months later, on 26
2011, and 17 months after my initial request, I received a Decision Notice (FS50348825) from the ICO upholding the original decision by TNA.
 It is my experience that the delays in the ICO considering complaints are not untypical. In fact in this matter the ICO responded rather more quickly than in other matters with which I am concerned.
 I decided to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (FTT).
The First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights)  John Kirkhope v Information Commissioner and National Archives (EA/2011/0185)
 Before continuing I should, at this point, explain two things. First I was concerned to appeal the case because, as a lawyer, I was curious to know the process and procedures. I regarded it as something of an academic exercise. Next I recognised that if I succeeded in opening the file I may ether decide it was not interesting or while it was interesting it did not add to my thesis. I had no way of knowing since I had not seen the file. I quickly discovered my relatively relaxed attitude was naïve. I submitted the basis of my appeal against the ICO Decision to the FTT. The ICO responded and I made additional observations in reply to the ICO. At this stage TNA applied to join the case which application was accepted by the Tribunal. There then ensued considerable and delays while the Duchy of Cornwall decided  whether they also wished to join in the matter. At one point I was informed a decision could not be made because the Prince of Wales was out of the country and he needed to be consulted. In the event the Duchy concluded they would not proceed with their application.  Witness statements were exchanged. The witnesses for the other side included three people holding knighthoods including the Chief Executive of the Duchy, a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury and a previous Principal Private Secretary to the Queen and the Prince of Wales. In addition two senior civil servants from the TNA and HMRC were to give evidence. I was fortunate in that a  barrister whom I had previously assisted agreed to act for me on a “pro bono”  basis.
 Various communications were passed between the parties relating to procedural and other matters. A considerable amount of papers submitted to the FTT was “closed”. That is I was not allowed sight of the material because it would reveal details of the documents I was not permitted to see. The case was finally set down for hearing on 7/8 February 2012 almost exactly 2  years since my original application to TNA. Space does not permit a detailed consideration of the hearing. Suffice to say I arrived at court with my Legal Executive and Counsel to find the Court allocated could barely cope with the  various people who were in attendance for the other side. TNA was represented  by a QC who is also First Treasury Counsel, he was, of course supported by a  junior counsel. The ICO was represented by their counsel. The instructing solicitors were also in attendance as were the five witnesses. In addition, as I discovered later, various senior civil servants from the Cabinet Office came along to observe. There were a number of other people whose identities I did not discover until later. In total, excluding the Judges, there 22 people in the Court Room of whom 3 only were from my side. The seriousness with which the matter  was being taken was brought home to me. For a little more than a third of the two days my team was excluded from the Court as it went into closed session to consider the documents in detail. There  were various legal arguments which took longer than anticipated and it was decided that a matter before the Court of Appeal had relevance to the case. The court decided that another day at least would be required and the matter was adjourned. A further date was eventually agreed for 23
 May 2012. The hearing in May started with legal arguments which included, extraordinarily, a consideration of the Bill of Rights 1688 and Contempt of Parliament. These lasted for some two hours. After that the three sides summarised their positions. The Judge concluded by saying that usually the Court sought to make a  judgement within 3 weeks this case would take much longer to decide.  After the hearing had concluded I was told that the QC, being First Treasury Counsel, would be more often found in the Court of Appeal representing the Government not in the lowly First Tier Tribunal. It was explained to me that a gentleman who sat through all three days in Court was, in fact, a representative of

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->