Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Un-redacting the Redactors: do Haringey Council lawyers redact fairly and reasonably?
IN response to formal Requests to Haringey Council for documents under the Freedom of Information Act, council lawyers will often redact words, sentences, paragraphs or whole pages, or any other information which in their view is sensitive.
The public is left to trust that these legal officers—using skill, competency and with regard to professional standards—will act fairly, reasonably, with care and in good faith.
However, a recent judgement (Case Reference:EA/2023/0217) by an Information Rights Tribunal calls these assumptions into question. A Judge has recently disclosed some of our council's efforts (my bolding):
———
… We [the Tribunal] concluded that far more had been redacted than needed on any basis to support the exemption claimed. We gained an impression that there had been a blanket approach taken. To illustrate this only (without undermining the rule 14 protection in place) we noted for example:-
(a) in the 10 March 2020 Minutes redacted material included unnamed staff being thanked and arrangements for Members.
(b) in the 12 May 2020 Minutes redacted material included a comment about the need to work with finance on a project.
(c) in the 7 July 2020 Minutes redacted material included the statement about items from the previous meeting being the agenda and that one councillor had no questions.
(d) in the 29 September 2020 Minutes redacted material included that an item was introduced and that a councillor delivered a presentation and that councillors asked to be kept updated.
(e) in the 27 October 2020 Minutes redacted material included an apology for late papers.
(f) in the 12 January 2021 Minutes redacted material included questions being asked by councillors and that details would appear on the Council's website.
(g) in the 16 February 2021 Minutes redacted material included a question about the timing of reports.
(h) in the 20 April 2021 Minutes redacted material included a comment for example that messaging needs to be right.
…
———
Do council lawyers redact information fairly and in good faith?
Is there any accountability?
Can they be trusted?
Tags for Forum Posts: EA/2023/0217, Tribunal, blanket, council, fair, fairly, good faith, information, judge, lawyers, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
———
THE council would claim that their (blanket) approach to redaction is in the public interest but too often, it is in council interests, which is not the same thing. The council's real and enduring interests include career, corporate and reputational promotion; brand-protection; and political or professional interests.
Haringey Council's culture —if not obsession—with secrecy, works against the public interest in myriad ways. It conceals waste and worse and wrongdoing.
It is almost incidental to note that their Constitution records the need for openness and transparency in the first sentence on the first page (image above).
- Article 1 of the Constitution commits the Council to clear and transparent decision-making …
- And in, Part Two, 12.02 Principles of decision making on page 35, there is:
(d) a presumption in favour of openness.
The Council do not hide their 412-page Constitution, but nor do they publicise it as they promote their continuous good news stories. It is as though this document is stored in a sealed glass case in the basement of a museum.
It is treated as a relic. Museum visitors can file past it, view and admire it. It can even be revered, but there is no sense in which it is a living document or has relevance to current municipal conduct.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
