Chief Constable Durham Constabulary

The complainant has requested information about the “McCloud Remedy” from Durham Constabulary. Durham Constabulary initially relied on section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA to refuse the request, but subsequently disclosed some information in response to a refined request. The complainant was dissatisfied with the handling of his request and also believed that further information was likely to be held. 
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Durham Constabulary undertook further searches and found more information, which it disclosed, albeit with redactions made under section 40(2) (Personal information) – these were not disputed. 
The complainant remained dissatisfied with the way the Durham Constabulary handled his request and required a Decision Notice to record procedural breaches. The Commissioner finds that Durham Constabulary breached sections 1(1)(b) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) in failing to identify and disclose some of the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. He does not find a breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.