This article is the second part in a series reporting on Freedom of Information procedures in the United Kingdom. In the first part, Elizabeth Meehan described how to compose an FOI request in the context of her research on judicial misconduct. Here she reports on the initial response to her request to the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman

Meehan, Elizabeth

LSE Research Online

25/02/2016Is freedom of information a viable research tool?  Step Two:Receiving a Response to a Requestblogs.lse.ac.uk /lseupr/2016/02/25/is-freedom-of-information-a-viable-research-tool-step-two-receiving-a-response-to-a-request/ Elizabeth Meehan(Undergraduate at Northwestern University & General Course student, LSE)Image rights: Lay Sheng Yap(BSc Government and Economics)This article is the second part in a series reporting on Freedom of Information procedures in the United Kingdom. Inthe first part, Elizabeth Meehan described how to compose an FOI request in the context of her research on judicialmisconduct. Here she reports on the initial response to her request to the Judicial Appointment and ConductOmbudsman.I received my first response to a freedom of information (FOI) request exactly 15 working days after I sent my email.I asked for all documents related to immigration judge misconduct complaint investigations from 2010 to 2015.The Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsmen (JACO) told me that I could not have the information Irequested. They gave me two reasons, and both were quite frustrating.First, they claimed that the cost of fulfilling my request would exceed the legal limit of £600 due to the amount ofrelevant paper and electronic files available in the specified time frame.Second, they mentioned that personally identifiable information would have to be redacted out of the documents toensure confidentiality, and they assumed this would take more time and money.I will break each of these arguments down, based on what I know about US and UK FOI.1/3The first reason completely shocked me. Not the “there are tons of documents” part; this thrilled me and told me Ihad been poking around in the right place. It was the cost aspect that stunned me. There are fee waivers foracademic researchers making FOI requests in the US, and I stated in my email that I was conducting research atNorthwestern.In the UK, no such luck. I learned from JACO’s letter that most public authorities have a £600, sometimes £450,limit. This amounts to 24 or 18 hours of work paying £25 per hour, or a maximum of three working days, to respondto a request. These limits are in place so agencies can say no to large requests and focus funds on the agency’swork itself.The second reason was more predictable. All of the US documents I have are redacted to varying degrees.Respecting the confidentiality of judges and immigrants named in these cases is necessary as the documents cancontain sensitive personal information.For instance, I observed a UK Upper Tribunal courtroom in late January (immigration courts are open to the public inmost cases). One woman’s case for judicial review to stay in the UK involved an abusive husband who left her andher daughter. It is understandable that she might not be okay with having her name in the hands of an unknownmember of the public.For judges, the potential for threats if they are identified as having denied someone the ability to stay in the UK areall too real. Redacting names can protect their personal safety. Even if the investigations find no misconduct,knowing that a certain judge was investigated could lead to immigrants requesting another judge for their case,complicating the already complex system.Even with measures taken to protect confidentiality, I did not think that my request would take that long to process. Iwas aware from my own digging that only two immigration judges had been disciplined by the Judicial ConductInvestigation Office (JCIO) since 2011. So JACO, which only looks at potential maladministration in JCIOinvestigations, could not have had that many cases forwarded to them. Given that there should have been few,relatively easy to find cases (keyword: immigration–not that hard), they should have been able to provide me with theinformation I requested.At the end of the letter, they told me that I had the right to an internal review. This means that someone at JACO whodid not look at my request originally would review it and see if they reach the same conclusions. So I sent an internalreview request, responding point by point to their reasoning and why I believed they had misinterpreted my request.The internal review came back with the same conclusion as the first response. However, they added that some ofthe files I had asked for had either been a) corrupted or b) deleted to comply with data protection laws. They alsotold me that if I restricted my request to one fiscal year rather than five, they would be able to give me the data Iwanted. I amended my request to fiscal year 2015 and am waiting to receive those documents right now.Finally, success!You may be wondering why I didn’t anticipate these rebuttals and adapt my requests accordingly. For instance, Iknew that it was a long shot they would release five years of records due to budget constraints. But I chose to beoptimistic. Had I asked to see only the records from 2015, I probably could have received my data in October ratherthan February.I chose to be positive because filing these FOIA requests is just as much a part of my research as getting the dataitself from the agency. How can you know what the limits of the law are without testing them yourself?Sure, you can adapt your request to the text of the law to make it a problem-free process. The thing is, manyrequests are not problem-free. To understand how the law works “on the ground” on a day-to-day basis, you have tosee how the rejection process operates as well. The process of negotiation between myself, JACO and the law hasgiven me a plethora of insight into how the FOI regime works in the UK.2/3The FOI aspect of this project is incredibly relevant. I am not the only one concerned with the bureaucracy involvedin fulfilling FOI requests. In July, the UK government appointed a five-person Commission to review FOI and presentits findings. The Commission held an oral evidence hearing on its merits in January. They argued about the internalreview process and its utility:“THE CHAIRMAN: [cut out] I do worry that — two things. One is that, by having a two stage process, you actuallyencourage [reviewers of FOI requests] to say no at first step on a belief that a lot of people will go away and only ifthey try hard would it actually go to the internal review, and then, you know, at a later stage it may be escalated up,as you say, with a qualified person, but why can’t this be a seamless process whereby, you know, things that aresensitive naturally go up through the process from the word go….I mean, there are cases that are going on foryears, which seems a very strange outcome for the notion of Freedom of Information.”My project is situated within this broader critique of the review process. When I received the response to my originalrequest, I wondered why cases could not be “escalated”. I knew that immigration court misconduct would be asensitive topic, so why was it not directed to the head of JACO from the start? The results of such committeeconversations like this could have the practical policy implication of initial “escalation” for future FOI requesters.So I learned how to deal with an FOI rejection, gained some valuable insights about the FOI bureaucracy itself, andfinally arrived at a successful response. There are still a few loose ends to tie up though, such as the content of theJACO documents themselves. The final post will outline what I eventually receive from JACO and present some ofthe conclusions I have reached from the research process.The information and views set out in this blog article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the officialopinion of the LSE Undergraduate Political Review, nor the London School of Economics.Copyright © 2015 London School of Economics3/3

Is freedom of information a viable research tool? Step two: receiving a response to a request

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online