Freedom of Information: Information Commissioner rules Asbo names be released

The Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Asbo) has been a central plank in New Labour's law and order policy, with ministers falling over each other to extol the virtues of using civil orders to control local trouble-makers.

Since Labour brought in the legislation in 1998, thousands of examples of nuisance behaviour have been curtailed by the imposition of Asbos. As a result, the new orders have been championed by councillors all over England and Wales.

But councillors in Camden, despite some considerable success in tackling problem communities, have been reluctant to disclose the names and addresses of dozens of teenage delinquents, noisy neighbours and nuisance motorists who have all been given Asbos. Despite repeated requests for information, Camden has cited legal justification for withholding the names.

When a member of the public used the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to loosen councillors' tongues, Camden provided only an edited version, citing law enforcement and personal information exemptions, as reasons for redacting personal details which might identify individuals.

Unhappy with this partial disclosure, the requester complained to the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, arguing that the full database should be released.

In a ruling published this month, Mr Thomas ordered the London Borough of Camden to release details of the identities of some residents who have been made the subject of the orders.

Disagreeing with Camden, Mr Thomas said that the release of the information would not prejudice the prevention and detection of crime or the administration of justice and, as such, the exemption on law enforcement had been incorrectly applied. In line with Home Office guidance he ruled that the names of most of the individuals should be released. However, he did agree that the names of some individuals should be redacted, for instance where the Asbo had expired or where the recipient was judged to be particularly vulnerable.

The complainant told the Commissioner that all the requested information is already in the public domain because Asbos are made in public and are supposed to be publicly known about (therefore the information should not be withheld). He also pointed to the fact that details of individuals who are the subject of Asbos can be specifically published by councils if they so wish.

In his judgment Mr Thomas said:

The fundamental nature of an Asbo is that it serves protective purposes during a finite period. The Commissioner does not consider that disclosure, during its currency, of an Asbo which has already been publicised would amount to breach of the first or second data protection principles. Nor would there be breach in any such case where publicity can be justified in line with the Home Office guidance, even though it was not in fact sought.

In applying this approach to the Camden case, the Commissioner concluded that the council should not have redacted all the names from the disclosed database but was justified in redacting names in those cases where any of these four exceptions apply or where victims, witnesses or other third parties would be identified.

The council now has 35 days from the date of the decision notice to release the information to the complainant.