UK Tribunal To Decide Whether Gov't Agencies Can Continue To Pretend There's A Residency Requirement For FOI Requests

from the because-there-isn't dept

The UK's Freedom of Information law is pretty straightforward when it comes to residency requirements. There aren't any.

Anyone can make a freedom of information request – they do not have to be UK citizens, or resident in the UK. Freedom of information requests can also be made by organisations, for example a newspaper, a campaign group, or a company.

And yet, some UK government agencies have decided to read a residency requirement into a law that doesn't contain one. As Owen Bowcott reports for The Guardian, these seemingly illegal non-responses to requests are about to be tested in court.

A combined hearing involving the Home Office, Metropolitan police, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and 13 separate cases is to be held at an information tribunal in London.

At issue is whether applicants overseas are entitled to a response when submitting freedom of information requests to UK government departments and agencies.

Nothing in the UK's Freedom of Information law appears to institute a residency requirement for FOI requesters. Nor does it hint at territorial limitations that could allow agencies to withhold documents from certain requesters. But the agencies handling these 13 cases seem to feel there is a residency requirement and they appear to be applying this novel interpretation to screw with requesters they'd rather not respond to.

One set of requests deals with the UK's government's involvement with attempts to extradite Julian Assange for prosecution.

One of the blocked cases is an appeal by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who works for daily newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano and writes about WikiLeaks.

She has been pursuing information about how the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with its Swedish counterpart during initial attempts to extradite Assange to Sweden.

So, it appears that at least one of the 13 cases is about documents being withheld because the agency doesn't want to release them, not because there's a genuine question about whether the agency is obligated to respond to non-UK residents. Meanwhile, the government says it's going to continue following the law… by not following the law in these 13 cases -- at least until the tribunal says otherwise.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: freedom of information, residency, uk


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 6 Oct 2020 @ 10:02pm

    We've decided there is one

    Don't like it, so sue us.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2020 @ 3:47am

    When I saw the headline for this article, I just knew that Stefania Maurizi's name was going to appear somewhere.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bill Silverstein (profile), 7 Oct 2020 @ 9:11am

    I don't see the problem with the use.

    What is the problem here? These wrongful arrests due to faulty facial recognition is not the fault of the facial recognition. Especially when the identification is prefixed with “[t]his document is not a positive identification” “It is an investigative lead only and is not probable cause for arrest.”

    Whose fault is it if the cop only goes off the computer match instead of If the cop(s) are stupid enough to not look at the photo?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2020 @ 4:03am

      Re: I don't see the problem with the use.

      If a tool doesn't work and costs a lot of money, it shouldn't be used.

      Also, wrong article.

      link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.