FOI request (FOI221967)

Artworks

Requested Tue 29 August 2017
Responded  Tue 29 August 2017

1. We would like to know what artworks the council has purchased in the financial years 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17. This covers artworks such as paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures etc.

2. For each artwork we would like to know how much the council spent on it, the name of the artwork, the name of the artist and where it currently resides, for example on public display in a town hall, in the mayor's private office, in storage etc.

3. We would also like to know what artworks were sold in the same period. We would like to know the name of the artwork, the name of the artist, how much the artwork was sold for, and where possible when the artwork was bought, how much it was bought for, when it was sold and who it was sold to.

Response

Notice of Refusal

Please note that I consider the information you have requested concerning artworks the Council has purchased to be exempt information under S31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act in that disclosure of that information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The exemption afforded by S31(1)(a) is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'.  When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure. 

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest.   In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public.  Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a)   furtherance of understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day

b)   promotion of accountability and transparency by public authorities in the decision they make and the spending of public money

c)   allowing individuals and companies to better understand decisions made by public authorities which affect their lives

We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves.   In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a)   that there is no evidence of a wider public (rather than individual) interest in disclosure

b)   that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime

c)   that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice

f)    that crime associated with valuable works of art whether owned by organisations, has a substantial detrimental effect upon other individuals in the neighbourhood and wider community

g)   that the motives behind the request (albeit not provided to us) have no relevance since disclosure would mean the information would be in the public domain

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.