header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / Charles Brasted
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Legal services
printer mail-detail

A trouble shared

A proposed extension of the application of FIA 2000 raises questions both of principle and practice, says Charles Brasted

The latest consultation on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000), Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of Additional Public Authorities (CP 27/07), which closed on 1 February 2008, has outlined controversial government proposals to extend its scope beyond the public authorities currently subject to its provisions.

FIA 2000 came fully into force on 1 January 2005 and gives anyone, including foreign nationals and companies, access to any information held by public authorities, subject to some statutory exemptions.

 

CORE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Bodies currently subject to FIA 2000, s 4 fall into one of two categories:

Public authorities—people or organisations whose establishment or appointment is (broadly speaking) made by or on behalf of the Crown or by legislation— listed in Sch 1 to FIA 2000 (which may be amended by order).

Companies wholly owned by a public authority.

 

Section 5 provides for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll