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


Ratings: (0)|Views: 305 |Likes:
Published by swedenversusassange
UK Crown Prosecution Service denies FOIA request on the grounds it might damage UK's relations with other countries.
UK Crown Prosecution Service denies FOIA request on the grounds it might damage UK's relations with other countries.

More info:

Published by: swedenversusassange on Feb 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Our ref: 2574
Refusal Notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
The purpose of this refusal notice is to explain why your request for information inconnection to the extradition of Julian Assange is being refused under s.27(1), 30(1)(c) and 40(2) FOIA.
Section 27(1) FOIA – International Relations
Information is exempt information under s. 27(1)(a) if its disclosure under the FOIAwould, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and anyother State. This is a prejudice based exemption and therefore the informationengaging the exemption is subject to the public interest test. The public interest testfor disclosure must outweigh the favour in protecting the information.When considering the balance of the public interest test for this exemption, we havetaken in account there is a clear public interest in the way the CPS carries out itsfunction as the principle prosecuting authority in England and Wales, and how itinterconnects with other criminal justice systems within the European Union (EU) andacross the world. We also note there is a strong public interest in CPS policy onprosecuting criminal offences and how it delivers an open and transparentprosecution service.However, on balance we consider that the grounds for disclosure do not outweigh theprejudice that would arise if correspondence in relation to the extradition of JulianAssange was to be released into the public domain. There is a vital public interest inmaintaining good relations between the UK and other States to enable effect to begiven to international commitments and treaty obligations in relation to criminal justice. Disclosure would certainly prejudice the UK’s reputation for honouring itscommitments and obligations, a diminishment of the UK’s reputation would lead toless confident relations with other States as they may consider that their exchangesin information with the UK might not be respected, if this were to happen formal lawenforcement procedures such as extradition would be at risk.
Section 30(1)(c) FOIA – Investigations and Proceedings conducted by publicauthorities
As set out at s. 30(1)(c) FOIA, information held by a public authority is exemptinformation if it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of itsfunctions relating to criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.Extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings, the authority for this is
R v Governor of Brixton Prison ex p Levin
[1 Cr App R 22].
The correspondence held inconnection to the extradition of Julian Assange is therefore specifically held for thepurposes of "criminal proceedings which the authority (CPS) has power to conduct".
This exemption is subject to the public interest test at section 2(2)(b) and thereforewe are required to consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemptionoutweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. When considering thecompeting public interest for and against disclosure, we have acknowledged thatdisclosure would enable transparency of the decision making process in relation tothe extradition matter, we have also taken into account that it would increase publicunderstanding the decision making process and allow the public to assess the CPS’decision making.However the CPS considers the reasons for disclosing do not outweigh the publicinterest in maintaining the exemption. It is important to note that the right of accessshould not undermine the investigation and prosecution process of criminal matters,this principle was recognised by the Information Tribunal, in the case of 
Mr A Digby-Cameron v the Information Commissioner EA/2008/0023 &0025; 26 January 2009,
inthis instance the case against Julian Assange is yet to be concluded and we consider that disclosure would undermine the extradition process. If communications were tobe released into the public domain, officials within the criminal justice arena wouldfeel inhibited to freely justify and maintain their thought process when makingdecisions. It is vital that officials are able to engage in discussion and debate withother criminal justice Departments with the object of achieving better prosecutiondecisions as possible, lack of candour in the decision making process would haveadverse ramifications on the integrity of the extradition process we have in place.
Section 40(2) FOIA – Personal Information
Turning to s.40(2) FOIA, which exempts personal data relating to third parties beingreleased into the public domain. Information released under the Freedom of Information Act is released into the public domain, not just to the individualrequesting the information and therefore due diligence must be given personal databelonging to living individuals.The material you have requested concerns the extradition of Julian Assange. Muchof the material held is personal data as defined by s.1 of the Data Protection Act1998 (DPA 1998). A proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data as itconcerns an alleged commission of a criminal offence.Personal data can only be released if to do so would not contravene any of the dataprotection principles contained within the DPA 1998. The first principle states:
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and (b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3is also met.
For this request, a condition in both Schedule 2 and 3 must be met before data canbe released to you, however upon review we believe that none of the criteria are metin either schedule and therefore releasing personal data to you would breach theprinciples of the DPA 1998.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->