Neil Wilby Media

As proved many times previously on this Neil Wilby Media website, well-crafted freedom of information requests, by journalists and members of the public, are a rich source of news. Local, regional and national.

But a series of innocuous requests to colleges and universities, regarding student numbers on relevant courses in just one particular locality, would not have been one that was expected to produce anything other than data that would be collated into a table and passed on to the organisation commissioning the work.

The requests, nine in total, were concisely presented and required very little effort to finalise for eight of the educational institutions that were contacted.

The ninth, not identified here for legal reasons, has provided a response that can best be described as perplexing. Not least in the context of the rest of the responses from their county ‘neighbours’.

This was the request, as submitted:

“By way of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) could you please disclose the following information:

“The number of students currently enrolled on (A) the [redacted]’s Media Studies BA degree course and (B) the [redacted]’s Broadcast Journalism BA course?

“Broken down by: (i) male (ii) female (iii) BAME (iv) international.”

The finalisation (or outcome, if one prefers) of the request has to be paraphrased so as not to breach alleged copyright: In essence, the freedom of information request was refused by the higher education institution saying they don’t hold the data at present, but it will be available in November, 2024 after returns are made to the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

Their response then carried this warning: “Please note that all copyright in this response belongs to [redacted]; you are not permitted to publish, reproduce, copy or otherwise use this response, except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”

Under FOIA, a requester (or applicant to use the alternative legal term) has a right to request that the response to her or his request be reviewed by an officer of a public authority not involved in dealing with it at first instance. Unsurprisingly, it is described in the Act as an ‘internal review’.

The requester wrote the following:

“I am writing to request an internal review of [redacted]’s handling of my FOI request ‘Information on media degree students’.

“These are the grounds of complaint:

1. It is inconceivable that a [redacted] does not hold data, either electronically or on paper, regarding the total number of students enrolled on two of its degree courses.

2. It would be surprising to most members of the public if the rest of the data was not also held by the [redacted], but not inconceivable.

3. Those views are informed by the following:
a. The applicant is a {redacted] and experienced [redacted].
b. Almost identical requests were made contemporaneously to [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]. All have disclosed the requested information save for where there are small numbers and, consequently and understandably, the response given is ‘less than five’.

4. Within your finalisation you assert copyright over your response. With respect, that appears to be a bizarre position to adopt when the decision in the case of the instant request is a refusal. It is also very much in the public interest (and a vocational necessity, in the case of this [redacted) for the [redacted] to explain, in the event that disclosure is ultimately made, what and how copyright attaches to the number of students on a particular degree course and a sub-set of demographic data.”

The internal review request was acknowledged promptly.

Under the Cabinet Office Code of Practice for FOIA, 20 working days are allowed for a public authority to provide the outcome of their review.

This one, novel taken at its face, is awaited with keen interest.

In the meantime, assistance has been sought from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the topic as their published Guidance on Copyright and the FOIA does not appear to assist either the requester or the higher education institution in this particular case (read the Guidance in full here).

Page last updated: Tuesday 19th March, 2024 at 1645 hours

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: NWM

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.