Freedom of Information coverup clerk stung for £2k after deleting council audio recording

ICO notches up first successful FoI prosecution

A town clerk in the English county of Shropshire has been the subject of the first ever successful Freedom of Information prosecution after lying to a member of the public who made an FoI request.

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 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 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 breaches of the Act are unlawful but not criminal) marked the third anniversary of 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 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 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 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. ®

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022