Ofwatch are on the Case Paul Taverner of Ofwatch has been pursuing further details via the Freedom of Information Act but so far to no avail. He writes on OfcomWatch: Following on from what Russ (on OfcomWatch) had to say about Ofcom and Freedom of Information, visitors might be interested in my experience with Ofcom in this respect, which is in marked contrast to what Ofcom have reported. I asked for copies of some letters of complaint (excluding any personal details), copies of some of the content board’s discussion papers and copies of some of the main Ofcom board minutes. All three requests and subsequent appeals were refused by Ofcom on the grounds that, on balance, it was not in the public interest to release these documents. If anyone is interested to read the details of the requests, appeals and refusals they can all be found here, along with my appeal to the Information Commissioner. Those of you who have read my previous posts will not be surprised to learn that the information requested was in connection with the way in which adult services are regulated by Ofcom. It would seem that the situation we now face is even less certain and even more obscured than in the past. The release of the new broadcast code has raised more questions than it answers and Ofcom’s continual refusal to answer any questions of substance concerning adult services is now a cause of concern. There currently appears to be some sort of restriction on answering questions about adult services at Ofcom. When the code was released I asked a number of questions and was told that, I would receive a response when they had had time to consider them. That was six weeks ago and I have heard nothing. I have also heard similar reports from others where people have been given a very evasive and superficial response or in some cases not received a reply at all. So what gives? Well the BBFC’s Video Appeals Committee is due to pronounce on a series of attempts to shift the 18/R18 boundary in the next week or so, I wonder if this has anything to do with it? It’s likely that some changes will occur which will have knock on effects in broadcasting now that Ofcom has nailed it’s colours the BBFC classification mast. It is also possible (but unlikely) that the VAC could upset the entire regulatory apple cart and allow R18 content at 18. Perhaps Ofcom are simply nervously waiting on developments like the rest of us and would rather avoid questions until the dust settles. Alternatively perhaps they just don’t have any adequate answers. Back on the subject of Freedom of Information, I have a fourth request still pending asking for the commissioning documents and raw data from Ofcom’s recent PIN research. Would anyone like to give me odds on the likelihood that this request will be denied on public interest grounds?

 

Freedom of Information From the first of January 2005 the Freedom of Information Act has provided members of the public with the right to access information held by the Government and other public authorities. Ofwatch and many others have been trying to extract information from Ofcom ever since. Although this Act provides a useful tool to find out what is going on, information may be withheld under certain circumstances due to a complex series of exemptions, however many exemptions are open to a public interest test which means that information may only be withheld if on balance, there is a greater public interest in withholding the information rather than in releasing it. When a Freedom of Information (FOI) request is received, a qualified person at the authority concerned assesses the request and must decide if the information can be released. If it can be, copies of the documentation are immediately sent to the person requesting the information. If not, the reasons why the information must be withheld must be reported to the person making the request. Some form of response is required to FOI requests within 30 working days. In the case of a refusal there is an elaborate appeal system. If an authority refuses to release information and the person making the request believes that the information should have been released, he or she may appeal to the authority. A different qualified person at the authority must then review the request and may overrule or uphold the original decision. If the person making the request is still not satisfied with the result, he or she may then appeal to the Information Commissioner who acts independently. The Information Commissioner (or an appointed deputy) will then reassess the request and may overrule or uphold the decision of the authority. If the Information commissioner agrees with the authority there are limited alternative lines of appeal, but there is little likelihood of a successful outcome unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the Information commissioner disagrees with the authority he or she has the legal power to demand the release of the information requested. In this circumstance the authority may then counter appeal to the relevant minister to overrule the Information commissioner and the minister’s decision is final. Further details of the workings of the Freedom of Information Act can be found here.

 

Ofcom's PIN research

Request	Documents	Ofcom decision
FOI Request 2392084 Letters of complaint resulting in the Playboy fine (excluding personal details)	Initial request response delay refusal appeal appeal refusal	Not in the Public Interest
FOI Request 2405004 Content board reports and decision papers concerning the R18 issue.	Initial request Refusal (linked by Ofcom to 2423395)	Not in the Public Interest
FOI Request 2423395 Ofcom board meeting minutes relating to R18 issues	Initial request Refusal Joint appeal Joint refusal*	Not in the Public Interest
FOI Request (pending) Commissioning documents and raw data concerning	Initial request	Pending

 

Appealing to the Information Commissioner Due to the outstanding public interest case in favour of releasing documents that underpin Ofcom's reasons for the censorship of UK television services, Ofwatch has raised an appeal with the Information Commissioner in this case of requests 2405004 and 2423395.