The new Act sets aside the non-disclosure provisions only where
disclosure is "necessary" for the purpose of, or in connection with,
legal proceedings [35(2)].
We may need to look carefully at what is *necessary* here (as
elsewhere under the Act). Merely because the information may be
*relevant* to legal proceedings, does not establish that it is
"necessary" for those proceedings. If its not "necessary" then it is
not lawful to disclose it.
I suspect "necessary" means something more demanding than "helpful"
or "useful" to someone considering or involved in litigation. One
test may be whether withholding the information would be likely to
have a signficant impact on the outcome, or fairness, of the
proceedings.
Another question is whether the court has the power to order you to
disclose. If it does, then perhaps you should always refuse to
disclose under 35(2), and disclose only if required to do so by the
court. In this case, 35(1) comes into play.
Maurice Frankel
Campaign for Freedom of Information
At 2:35 pm +0100 27/3/01, Leif Wilks wrote:
>Stuart says "Under the new Act, the "party or witness"
>stipulation has been dropped, so there appears to be nothing to prevent
>disclosure for any legal proceedings, whether or not the Council is
>involved."
>True: I checked this same point very recently with the OIC.
>
>Leif
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|