Freedom of Information coverup clerk stung for £2k after deleting council audio recording
- Reference: 1584539121
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/18/first_successful_foi_act_prosecution/
- Source link:
Nicola Young, clerk of Shropshire's Whitchurch Town Council, was fined £400, ordered to pay legal costs of £1,493 and a victim surcharge tax of £40, leaving her with a total bill of £1,933.
She pleaded guilty last week to breaking [1]section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by deleting a recording of a council meeting that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
A member of the public sent an FoI request to Whitchurch council asking for the audio recording of the council's March 2019 meeting. Council [2]meeting minutes [PDF] from April 2019 showed one councillor claimed the previous month's minutes were inaccurate, with the meeting chairman rebutting this by stating they were "written from an audio recording."
That member of the public wanted to compare the recording with the published minutes. Yet, instead of doing her duty as the council's "proper officer" in charge of responding to FoI requests, Young, of Shrewsbury Street, Whitchurch, Shropshire, deleted the recording once she became aware of the request – and then lied to the member of the public, saying that the file had been previously deleted in line with council protocol.
The Information Commissioner's Office, once alerted to the suspicious disappearance of the recording, prosecuted Young – and on 11th March she pleaded guilty to her crime at Crewe Magistrates' Court.
Mike Shaw, the ICO's group manager in enforcement, said in a statement: "People should have trust and confidence that they can access public information without the danger of it being doctored, fabricated or corrupted in any way."
A woman who answered Whitchurch Town Council's public phone number yesterday said to The Reg : "no comment, no comment at all".
Young's criminal conviction (other [3]breaches of the Act are unlawful but not criminal) marked the third anniversary of [4]her appointment as town clerk, while council meeting minutes show that she stopped attending full council meetings from November 2019 onwards. In December, the minutes merely recorded that, under the heading "staffing matters," Whitchurch's mayor "gave an update on the Town Clerk's absence."
The Register understands the recording was recovered during the ICO's investigation.
Destroying public records in response to FoI requests is a crime under section 77(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which makes it illegal to deliberately obstruct access to public records "with the intent to prevent disclosure." A similar offence exists in [5]section 100H(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 , as amended, and, unlike the FoI offence, a prosecution can be brought by any public body or private person instead of being restricted to the Information Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions alone.
The ICO has been flexing its regulatory muscles in recent times. Back in late 2018, a car repairman was [6]prosecuted for stealing customers' data from a previous employer and flogging it on to telemarketing scammers. Council corruption has previously featured in ICO prosecutions brought under the Data Protection Act, with a head of building control being convicted in 2019 of trying to skew a recruitment process by stealing job applicants' CVs from council systems and sending them to his partner, who had applied for the same position.
Nearly a decade ago, the ICO [7]complained that it has just six months from the date of the crime to prosecute public sector FoI criminals – and not six months from the time when someone complains. Oddly enough, this hasn't changed in the intervening years.
Even with Brexit and the spread of the novel coronavirus looming large in the British national consciousness, data crimes are still being detected and perps prosecuted. ®
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/77
[2] https://whitchurchcouncil.uk/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2019/06/Full-Council-MINUTES-18.04.19.pdf
[3] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/complaints/
[4] https://whitchurchcouncil.uk/town-clerk-appointment/
[5] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/100H
[6] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/13/mustafa_kasim_jailed_data_abuse_ico_prosecution/
[7] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/30/ico_powers_to_stop_foi_dodgers_not_yet_here/
Re: Million dollar question
> Did the clerk delete the recording because they couldn't be arsed to deal with the FOI or to protect themselves or someone else due to what the recording might have revealed?
Two buttons to click on in the recording management software: [DELETE] [RETRIEVE]
Oops, butter fingers.
I bet someone else put her up to it and the spineless toe rag agreed. Clearly not fit to hold that position and must now resign.
Unlikely. This is local government we're talking about. Even a criminal prosecution with respect to your competence to do the job is likely not enough to get shot of them.
Steven "Spent too much time in Local Govt" R.
Yeah, I can second that. The stories I could tell... were I not afraid my ex employers might decide to sue me.
You do know that you're not allowed to give yourself a nickname, right? I'm sure I'll be downvoted for finding it an irritating habit but I just couldn't keep my (worthless) opinion to myself any longer. Sorry.
Anonymous "Richard Roeper" Coward
Re: Million dollar question
Presumably must be the latter. Doesn't take much arse-ishness to attach a sound file to an email after all.
In the interests of open and transparent government, why shouldn't they routinely post recordings of council meetings on their website anyway - then no need for an FOI request?
Or is that too much of an arsk as well?
Re: Million dollar question
A lot of councils actually do. I do know of at least one council that used to live stream them and then load the video up on their website - and this was back in the early 2000s, so you just know they were using RealPlayer...
Re: Million dollar question
@Zippy
Ok - then why shouldn't they BE FORCED TO routinely post recordings of council meetings on their website.
Sound files would keep the size down, but video would be more fun so viewers could play 'spot the brown envelope(s)'.
Re: Million dollar question
With all the talk of novel viruses, border closures, fights in supermarkets, economic downturns... life is bad enough right now without bringing up RealPlayer.
Re: Million dollar question
You are wrong, wrong wrong! Real player was brilliant and unforgettable.
Ok. I admit that my only encounter with a Real Player video was the Kylie Minogue Agent Provocateur underwear ad.
Memorable.
There is muck to be raked here
I just googled this case and found an article on the whitchurch heralds website* that quoted the judge as saying:
"All parties need to take a long, hard look at themselves. I suspect if the residents of Whitchurch saw those emails, they would be deeply shocked."
Which seems to be in reference to:
"[Young] found herself the subject of criticism from some councillors, which affected her health," said Mr Hanratty. "Including 250 emails from two councillors in a short period of time.
As they seem to have been evidence in court can you FOI request the emails so the residents of Whitchurch, and us in the peanut gallery, can read them and be deeply shocked?
*https://www.whitchurchherald.co.uk/news/18312091.whitchurch-town-council-branded-toxic-clerk-fined-deleting-meeting-recording/
Re: There is muck to be raked here
Well the locals can buy some vegetable seeds to grow in it then, if the stock levels of my supermarkets are anything to go by!
Re: There is muck to be raked here
The Whitchurch Herald is an absolute treasure.
I am disappointed to learn, for example, that Whitchurch Alport have only won 2 of their last 19 matches, including going down 4 - 2 away to Irlam.
I can't see them beating Runcorn Town next up.
Re: There is muck to be raked here
I think you're right. Sounds like the judge had a fair amount of sympathy for her.
Also looks like she might have a claim against the council if they try take things further as she was not trained to handle FOI requests.
Also the foi request was made by a Councilor! This stinks to high heaven.
Oh, great
Some third-rate Council in a tiny burg has been found guilty and prosecuted to the final extent. Yay for Justice.
Now, how about those FOI requests that land in London and never get an answer ?
Just a question.
Re: Oh, great
I believe FOI is shorthand for 'AFOID answering'.
Irrelevant comment here
I know nothing about this case or local councils generally.
Just came here to say that the Llangollen canal is delightful and passes over the stunning Pontcysyllte aqueduct.
Keep Quiet, Little People
Our beloved neo-liberal Prime Minister Tony Blair found nothing he had ever done in power caused him so much regret as passing the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
"You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop," Blair wrote of himself in his autobiography A Journey last year, recalling his adoption of the law, which took effect in 2005. "There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/28/freedom_information_data_protection_act_handy_guide/
No man is an Island
The whole point of the FOI was to release information that you already knew they have. Irrespective of what Sir Humphrey would say about the minutes of the meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s), if a majority of people remember a meeting vastly different from the actual minutes then there is a prima facie case for corruption of some kind. All the FOI has done is criminalise the cover up.
Re: Keep Quiet, Little People
'neo-liberal'?
He was 'new' labour wasn't he?
Where a red tie was actually sort of blue.
Million dollar question
Did the clerk delete the recording because they couldn't be arsed to deal with the FOI or to protect themselves or someone else due to what the recording might have revealed?