Holland appealed to the Information Commissioner 's Office ( ICO ) about the UEA 's refusals of FOI requests he had made for emails to and from Briffa about the IPCC AR4 report . On 23 November 2009 , after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy , he wrote to the Commissioner explaining in detail the relevance of the alleged CRU emails to his case . In one of these sent in May 2008 , Jones asked others to delete emails discussing AR4 with Briffa . ICO decisions are enforced under Section 50 by notices defining steps to be taken by the public authority within defined time limits , and failure to comply can be taken to court . In addition , Section 77 makes it an offence to intentionally destroy or conceal information which has been requested . In response to a '' Sunday Times '' journalist who persistently asked why the ICO was not prosecuting under Section 77 , Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith replied on 22 January 2010 that " The FOI Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information . Mr Holland 's FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8 , but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act . The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place , so by the time the action came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone . " The ICO was looking into other investigations time-barred by statute of limitations restrictions to see if a case could be made to change the relevant law . The journalist 's report as published in '' The Times '' on 28 January portrayed this as an ICO decision that the university " broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny " but the ICO " could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late . " The university promptly wrote to the ICO objecting to the damaging statement having been made to a journalist without first consulting the university . It described the misrepresentation by the press and requested retraction or clarification of the alleged breaches . The ICO declined to retract , but clarified that its investigation under Section 50 had not been completed and no decision notice had been issued . It said that " The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here , but can not be acted on because of the elapsed time , is a very serious matter . The ICO is not resiling from its position on this " , and that " Errors like this are frequently made in press reports and the ICO can not be expected to correct them , particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to penalties or sanctions in its own statement . " In its submission to the Science and Technology Select Committee , the university denied allegations that it had refused to release raw data in breach of the FOI Act , and said that the Deputy Information Commissioner 's comments had been incorrectly reported as referring to such data . In its inquiry report , the Science and Technology Select Committee criticised the ICO , which it said had made " a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate " , and recommended that it should develop procedures to check its public comments , and " swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements " . While there was '' prima facie '' evidence of a breach of Section 77 of the FOI Act , it would " be premature , without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations , to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act . " It called for a full investigation by the Muir Russell inquiry or by the Information Commissioner to resolve this issue , and accepted that the six month statute of limitations restriction was insufficient and should be reviewed . On the general issue of information requests , the committee said that information not covered by the exclusions provided by the FOIA should have been disclosed , and " in future information , including data and methodology , should be published proactively on the internet wherever possible . " It blamed the university for mishandling Freedom of Information requests , and said it had “ found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics ”
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit