Decision of University Council Committee to place an ‘embargo’ on the release of information considered by the Committee—embargo prevented any independent report on the information considered by the Committee until the next meeting of the Council of the University—meeting open to public—requester entitled to a copy of the agenda, subject only to the payment of the prescribed amount
A reporter requested the monthly statements presented to a committee of a University Council. The University agreed to release the statements subject to the condition that they were not to be made publicly available until after the next meeting of the Council. The reason given by the University for imposing this condition was that it considered the statements should not be publicly available until after the members of the Council had received and had an opportunity to discuss them. The requester considered that the imposition of this condition would affect his ability to use the information independently and he requested an investigation under section 28(1)(c) of the OIA.
The case is of interest because the imposition of conditions on release has the potential of overriding the provisions of either the OIA or the LGOIMA.
The first question to be addressed was whether the Committee, which was a committee of the University Council, was subject to the LGOIMA. In that regard the University Council is part of an institution established under Part XIV of the Education Act 1989 and is listed in the Second Schedule of the LGOIMA. Accordingly, the Committee had an obligation to comply with the requirements of Part VII of the LGOIMA.
Investigation revealed that the monthly statements had been tabled at an open meeting of the Committee and were in the public domain from that time. The requester had attended the committee meeting and had requested a copy of the statements the following day. Section 49 of LGOIMA has particular relevance. It provides:
49. Provisions applying when meeting open to public
Where a meeting of a local authority is required by this Part of this Act to be open to the public during the proceedings or any part of them, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, bona fide members of the news media shall be deemed to be members of the public, and shall be entitled to attend any meeting or any part of a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for any news media:
(b) Where copies of the agenda for any meeting are reproduced by any means for use by members of a local authority, that local authority shall cause such additional copies of the agenda to be reproduced as may in its opinion be necessary to ensure an adequate supply for persons requesting copies pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section:
(c) Where any member of the public who attends a meeting of a local authority requests a copy of the agenda and tenders the prescribed amount (if any), that person shall be given a copy of every agenda reproduced for use by members of the local authority at that meeting of which there is a spare copy, and may take each away with that person:
(d) Copies of the agenda supplied for members of the public as provided in paragraph (b) of this section shall include such further statements or particulars, if any, as are necessary to indicate the nature of any items included in the agenda unless that item refers to any matter to be considered by the local authority when the meeting is not likely to be open to the public.
As the statements were tabled at a meeting of the Committee which was open to the public, section 49(c) of the LGOIMA applied and the requester would appear to have been entitled to a copy of the agenda, subject only to the payment of the prescribed amount, if any.
In these circumstances the ‘necessity’ test in section 9 of the OIA, to which the University Council was also subject, was not made out as it could not be said that it was necessary to withhold information to protect any of the interests set out in that section when the information was already in the public domain.
Whilst the University Council’s concern was that information tabled at a Committee meeting would be in the public domain before the Council itself had had an opportunity to consider the matters, there was no basis either for it to be withheld or to support the imposition of conditions on its use.
The opinion was formed that the conditions imposed by the University on the release of the statements were wrong.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.