※ 引述《Doombringer (道不遠人~)》之銘言：
: 如果這個是真的 是不是還彭文正公道了
: 英國高等行政法院裁定：
: 倫敦政經學院在蔡英文論文門醜聞中違反了自由資訊流通法案！
: 英國高等行政法院命令倫敦政經學院須在28天內透露醜聞實情！
: 英國高等行政法院也裁定：
: 1.蔡英文的論文根本不存在！
: 2.蔡英文的兩位口試委員是蔡英文自記瞎扳捏造出來的！
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdWVClQoijY
相關判決連結：
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2022/2021_0373.html&query=(michael)+AND+(richardson)
我似乎沒有找到另一個上訴人是Michael Richardson而且在2022的判決
Conclusion
22. The Decision Notice concluded on the balance of probabilities that LSE did
not hold the requested information. The Tribunal has had the benefit of
additional evidence provided by the Appellant and by LSE itself with its
submissions.
需要探討的是LSE的確有機率是並不持有這些被要求的資訊的(蔡的論文)
23. We conclude on the basis of all the evidence before us and on the balance
of probabilities that information within the scope of the request is held by
LSE in President Tsai’s student file. That information has been referred to in
email correspondence between LSE and others (including apparently being
supplied to a judicial inquiry) and is also referred to in its submission to
the Tribunal.
We understand that LSE doubts the accuracy of this information, but we
conclude that this is not a basis for stating that information is not held
under FOIA.
24. It may be that exemptions will be claimed, but we conclude that LSE must
now issue a fresh response in which that issue is addressed. As we have
concluded that information is held, the correct course is for LSE to issue a
fresh response on the basis that information within the scope of the request
is held, and at that stage either disclose the requested information (with
contextual commentary, if necessary) or claim any exemptions to disclosure
that it considers apply. If the Appellant disagrees with that response, he may
complain to the Information Commissioner. The Tribunal may only become
involved if a further Decision Notice is issued.
25. We allow this appeal on the basis of the Appellant’s first ground of
appeal,
that the Decision Notice was erroneous in its conclusion that information was
not held.
26. As to the Appellant’s second ground of appeal, we note that President
Tsai
may only give permission to disclose her own personal data and may not
override the privacy rights of third parties. In any event, this Tribunal may
not
determine the applicability of exemptions which have not yet been claimed
and have not been considered in a Decision Notice.
27. As to the Appellant’s third ground, this Tribunal’s jurisdiction
extends only
to considering the Decision Notice. It is not our role to comment on LSE’s
handling of the request.
28. We now allow the appeal and make the substituted Decision Notice above.
換句話說，這份裁定是說
上訴人第一個主張-LSE持有蔡英文的資料，應根據法規揭露
法院認可了LSE 可能持有蔡英文的相關資料
第二個主張，法院認為蔡英文可以在不違反第三者隱私權的狀況下僅許可揭露其個人資料
而在Decision Notice中沒有討論到的部分法院無法決定
第三個主張，法院的裁量權僅及於Decision Notice，而無法對LSE如何回應(上訴人)請求
做出評論
基於此，法院作出如上(如下)裁定:
A. The Tribunal finds that Decision Notice IC-109451-SIM2 dated 26
November 2021 was erroneous and that information within the scope of
the information request is held by LSE;
B. LSE must within 28 days issue a fresh response to the Appellant’s original
information request which confirms that information within the scope of
his request is held and either disclose it or claim any exemptions to
disclosure on which it relies.
A:法院發現2021的DN有誤，題述資訊由LSE持有
B:LSE應在28天內回應原始的資訊請求，要不就是揭露，要不就是提出任何豁免主張。
那如果從那時到現在4個月，LSE要不就是已經揭露，或是它真的不需要揭露XDDD
這個六月份的裁定中從頭到尾沒有說蔡的論文不存在耶