Olympic Stadium; our day in court
Comments
-
Good luck on Monday, but don't be surprised if the ICO don't actually appear in person (it's more likely that they will, with it being a high profile case).PragueAddick said:It might seem to have gone quiet but that is because we have been preparing for the Information Tribunal hearing, next Monday Jan 25th.
This is the result of the LLDC appealing the decision of the Information Commissioner that they should publish the entire contract with redaction.
The Tribunal is a kind of court, the panel of three consists of a QC and two lay people. The case is the LLDC (Appellant) versus the ICO, and me as the Second Party. I am allowed to participate because I asked the original FOI question. However I am not allowed to co-operate with the ICO. Worse, the LLDC successfully argued that I should not be able to see all the evidence they will present because it includes some of the information we seek to make public. The ICO does get to see it, however.
I've been assured by friends in the FOI sphere that the Tribunals do go out of their way to be fair. Nevertheless I have not been leaving anything to chance. The LLDC have of course hired a shit-hot specialist lawyer (paid for by you, of course)while the ICO rely on their regular salaried solicitor. That said, the ICO apparently win 71% of cases at this stage and they may feel they don't themselves need to waste taxpayers' money defending this one.
The LLDC have been up to their tricks, submitting evidence after deadlines (they were at it even this afternoon, but I was able to respond immediately), and pleading time because of illness etc.
However we have a solid case. I've been admirably assisted in preparation of it by @Dippenhall, but otherwise nobody else from the Trust has been distracted by this. Instead I have enjoyed the backing of the Coalition and its formidable media machine. Right after the Tribunal ends we will present the media with new evidence items, including one that blows out of the water Sullivan's claim that "they can rent it for 340 more days because we only need it for 25".
The Tribunal will not make a decision on the day, they expect it will take at least two weeks, but it is open to the public and media
All proper Charlton welcome. You might meet Gavros. But probably not the Baroness. West Ham refused to field a witness. Maybe someone would like to tweet. I won't be able to.
Venue details
I can now confirm that the hearing will take place on 25th January 2016 at 10.00am. It will be held at Field House, 15 Bream's Buildings, London, EC4A 1DZ. The Tribunal office has been told that Court 7 has been booked, but you should check with reception on the day in case that is changed.
Mind you, Tribunals are often scrupulously (if not more so) fair to the ordinary man.
I'm not actually sure that any lawyer would be shit hot where the Information Rights Tribunal is concerned; but they'd need to show a serious public interest in favour of withholding information in order to overturn the Decision Notice.
I'd imagine that the case is actually being handled under EIR, as the operation of a bloody great stadium and associated transport clearly had an environmental impact. If so, that would be good, as the presumption in favour of disclosure is much greater. The public authority is obliged to conduct a test of the public interest for all information which may be withheld/redacted.
Also, there is a much greater willingness to make commercially sensitive information available with the passage of time; so that information that was "live" 12 months ago may no longer be considered so now. There may be circumstances where, if a process was to be used again in the future, the confidentiality can be extended, but I don't imagine the LLDC will exist beyond the development of the Olympic venues, so, not likely, I would think.
Even if you win, the LLDC may seek to appeal, but, unless they can show an error in law, the chances would not be good (sadly, the same applies to those fighting the good fight).
Good luck. And enjoy the media spotlight.5 -
@cafcnutter you don't half talk sense for a nutter!1
-
Go get 'em, Prague! A tenacious and noble fighter, thou art. Commendable actions that should be rewarded with a result for all football fans and taxpayers.4
-
hope your hard work gets the result it deserves.0
-
A phenomenal effort. Best of luck to you and hope it goes well.1
-
I not really a nutter lookout I am a real softie really who likes fairness and the ability to challenge when you feel it's justified. I take after PV in lots of ways have the same intials but I'm the female sibling lolLoOkOuT said:@cafcnutter you don't half talk sense for a nutter!
3 -
Please wear that PA ...guaranteed to get publicityFumbluff said:PragueAddick said:
You'll be pleased to hear that yesterday I invested in some TV training, with a Czech former news anchor. She has banned the gilet from going anywhere near a TV camera. The correct attire for Monday has already been chosen, with her help.Fumbluff said:Good luck Richard, great work.
Don't wear the mustard gilet though
4 -
Good luck @PragueAddick . I can't help thinking there is still going to be some kind of fit-up to sweep this all under the carpet as it could be very damaging for the government.
Fantastic work so far and I hope it all goes well on the day.3 -
Absolute stunning effort @PragueAddick and wishing you the best in winning the case for the good of the wider football community.2
-
Fantastic effort and good luck, lets hope your hard work is rewarded with a result for football fans and taxpayers.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Prague your hard work and dedication is something some certain Belgians could learn from - top stuff2
-
@NornIrishAddick
You are obviously knowledgeable about the Tribunal process.
I think the ICO will be there in person because all aprties have asked for an aural hearing. They had bloody better be. But it is a high profile case, as you say. The LLDC lawyer is Anya Proops. She is still a junior in legal terms but has a string of impressive references. Information is one of her specialities, and it seems that she has on several occasions represented the ICO. That they have chosen not to hire her, or someone equivalent this time leads me to think (hope) that they are very confident of their position. But I am not going to leave it to them. I've submitted 10 pages of my own evidence.
If you have any tips, they would be most welcome.0 -
It's a shame there's no lawyer associated with our club that could bring their talents to the table to help out.......ohPragueAddick said:@NornIrishAddick
You are obviously knowledgeable about the Tribunal process.
I think the ICO will be there in person because all aprties have asked for an aural hearing. They had bloody better be. But it is a high profile case, as you say. The LLDC lawyer is Anya Proops. She is still a junior in legal terms but has a string of impressive references. Information is one of her specialities, and it seems that she has on several occasions represented the ICO. That they have chosen not to hire her, or someone equivalent this time leads me to think (hope) that they are very confident of their position. But I am not going to leave it to them. I've submitted 10 pages of my own evidence.
If you have any tips, they would be most welcome. Coincidentally Malcolm Clarke of the FSF turns out to be involved with Information Tribunals and I'll be speaking to him tomorrow to find out more about what to expect on the day, so no need for chapter and verse, but any key insights, or no-no's very gladly received.15 -
Much appreciation for the amount of time and effort you have obviously put in to this, Prague.
My fingers are crossed for Monday - look forward to hearing the updates.
Best of British to you.... :-)0 -
So this is what they were on about filming the second season of Making a Murderer.....1
-
Sad to say, I work in FOI/EIR in Northern Ireland (don't tell anyone, but I think the legislation is one of the best things that could happen, and not just because it gets me work). Not legally qualified in any way, sadly.PragueAddick said:@NornIrishAddick
You are obviously knowledgeable about the Tribunal process.
I think the ICO will be there in person because all aprties have asked for an aural hearing. They had bloody better be. But it is a high profile case, as you say. The LLDC lawyer is Anya Proops. She is still a junior in legal terms but has a string of impressive references. Information is one of her specialities, and it seems that she has on several occasions represented the ICO. That they have chosen not to hire her, or someone equivalent this time leads me to think (hope) that they are very confident of their position. But I am not going to leave it to them. I've submitted 10 pages of my own evidence.
If you have any tips, they would be most welcome. Coincidentally Malcolm Clarke of the FSF turns out to be involved with Information Tribunals and I'll be speaking to him tomorrow to find out more about what to expect on the day, so no need for chapter and verse, but any key insights, or no-no's very gladly received.
[I only know about the ICO sometimes not turning up from a case relating to my organisation, when an information applicant challenged a Decision Notice. The ICO, and not my organisation, were the respondent, but didn't turn up (we had provided explanations about our processes and why we had always stated that the information was not held), and we spent the three months allowed by the Tribunal, dredging up all records held on the topic, and in the process proved we didn't hold the information.]
The real advantage that you have in this case is that the LLDC unwillingness to make information available is almost certainly due to political considerations and a desire to avoid embarrassment. The Tribunal may leave you guessing about their intentions following submissions, but from experience they are quite happy to make reasonable assumptions with regard to contract information.
If the LLDC are relying on commercial confidentiality, they may attempt to claim that other legislation applies (for procurement contracts, the Public Contract Regulations may be cited). If they can make a coherent case re: other legislation, it is more likely that information may not be releasable. I would have my doubts about the confidentiality, because I would expect that the information would be covered by EIR and there is, in my mind, an overwhelming public interest in openness and accountability regarding public monies expended on the Olympic Park.
I'd concentrate on being absolutely clear about what it is you are seeking, and why it is in the public interest to place the information into the public domain. As the Second Party, you may not be hugely involved for much of the hearing, but, if you are there, they will probably question you. I would imagine that you are quoting your own evidence in your sleep; even so, a question may throw you, don't be afraid to ask the Tribunal to repeat/explain a question (sometimes there is an advantage to being seen as an amateur). I would expect that the ICO would be taking the lead, and would hope that there would be a strong line - if LLDC did not follow the appropriate procedures when handling your request, there would be little that even a talented barrister could do to defend them. The pressure going into the hearing is going to be all on the LLDC, as they are going to have to show10 -
Aargh!!!!
Meant to add...
"as they are going to have to show that the ICO have erred (and I'd expect the ICO to have been very careful, given the media interest).
Good luck on Monday and bloody well done,
I'll be looking for the Tribunal judgement in a couple of weeks."1 -
Proud of you in advance. You are doing what many would love to do if they had the time, tenacity and brains. Well done thus far. As a third rate US politician might say, "go kick some ass!"2
-
Good luck @PragueAddick. Concerning Tribunals - they are very fair in the way the deal with people. At least the one I used to have to work with occasionally - The Financial Markets and Services Tribunal - was. It's now defunct with its role taken over by The Upper Tribunal.
They used to give the FSA a hard time sometimes.
If your Tribunal has a similar set-up, as you say, there will be a lawyer and the lay people. But these individuals, at least at the FMST, were not random well-meaning people like magistrates but perhaps recently retired industry professionals with specialist knowledge. I assume the lay members on your panel would be of similar status.
0 -
Most certainly did. Good result and just reward for our dominance. Got a smile on my face this morning.9goalswentpastperry said:
Nowt very exciting, Leicester v SpursPragueAddick said:9goalswentpastperry said:
I hope you've got BBC1 on as well as perusing here..JohnBoyUK said:Well done Prague, fingers crossed
Why, what's on?0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yes but Leicester are focused on the title challenge:-)JohnBoyUK said:
Most certainly did. Good result and just reward for our dominance. Got a smile on my face this morning.9goalswentpastperry said:
Nowt very exciting, Leicester v SpursPragueAddick said:9goalswentpastperry said:
I hope you've got BBC1 on as well as perusing here..JohnBoyUK said:Well done Prague, fingers crossed
Why, what's on?
6 -
Good luck on Monday - sorry to say that in the midst of all the latest off-pitch goings on at Charlton I had forgotten about this. Thank you for all your hard work on football supporters and tax payers behalf1
-
NornIrishAddick said:
@NornIrishAddick
"I would imagine that you are quoting your own evidence in your sleep"
What makes you think he sleeps ?3 -
Good Luck and well done for using your precious spare time to take on this challenge. You deserve a Blue Peter badge for this!
0 -
Or even David's v Richard.AFKABartram said:Good luck Prague, proper David v Goliath stuff
3 -
Good luck Prague.0
-
And its good luck from me Prague.0
-
Great work you're doing there Prague. Good luck in court.1
-
Just sent my skeleton argument. Never done one before. That completes all the documentation . The die is cast, the stage is set. I have never been inside a court before, as far as I can remember. So thank you all for your wishes. Really, they give me strength.14
