Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy orders the University of London to court over missing Ph.D. viva regulations -

https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/

In a setback to Information Commissioner John Edwards, who has labored to deny Freedom of Information requests involving the University of London, Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy tossed out Edwards’ attempt to protect the UL from the disclosure of Ph.D. examination standards.

At issue are the 1983-84 regulations governing the examination of Ph.D. candidates. Although the UL academic regulations govern minute details of the degree award process, inexplicably the portion of the regulations that regulate the examination of PhD candidates are missing. The UL stonewalled a Freedom of Information request for the regulations a full year before claiming it could not find them.

The 1983-84 examination rules are important to the public because of the Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen‘s refusal to release her Ph.D. oral examination viva report which purportedly approved her 1983 thesis. Tsai triggered an academic firestorm in June 2019, when she submitted her PhD thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions, to the London School of Economics Library, thirty-five years late.

Viva panels varied according to the field of study with differing requirements for the examiners and even size of the viva panel. Neither the London School of Economics and Political Science, where President Tsai attended school nor the University of London, which awarded Tsai a PhD degree, will identify the viva examiners citing Tsai’s privacy right. The LSE now says it does not even know who the examiners were that approved Tsai’s thesis, thus putting the examination process in the spotlight.

Information Commissioner Edwards accepted the UL story without question and sought to have the FOI request struck out by asking Judge Kennedy to dismiss the matter without a hearing. However, the judge was not so quick to believe in missing regulations and ordered Edwards’ office to prepare for an oral hearing. Judge Kennedy also ordered the UL to be joined in the case as a co-respondent, which will now force the UL to answer about the missing viva regulations.

The Tribunal decision explains the ruling:

“The Appellant contacted the Commissioner…to complain about the way their request for information had been handled. The Commissioner investigated the complaint and considered the University’s handling of the Appellant’s request and whether the University holds the information it states is not held by it.”

“In his Notice of Appeal…the Appellant set out his Grounds of Appeal which contain quite detailed and lengthy specific challenges, supported by exhibits he has produced which he maintains nullify the assertions made to the Commissioner by the University in the investigation.”

“In the Response to the Grounds of Appeal, the Commissioner relies upon the DN [Decsion Notice] and repeats the legal tests and precedents as the basis for the finding that on the balance of Probabilities, the University does not hold the requested information that has not been found. In Paragraph 28 of this Response, the Commissioner states; “The Appellant has provided various procedures, minutes, and documents dating back to the 1980s to explain why the regulations he has requested would have existed. This information was not provided by the Appellant to the Commissioner in support of his section 50 FOIA complaint. If the Tribunal would be assisted in its decisionmaking on this matter by input from the University in relation to this supporting evidence or the extent of searches conducted, the Commissioner would respectfully invite the Tribunal to consider requesting written submissions or requiring it to join proceedings.”

“The Tribunal agrees with the helpful suggestion that the University are joined as the Second Respondent as the Tribunal find it impossible to determine, with any definitive accuracy, or at all how all the material facts are to be established.”

“I hereby join the Public Authority, herein, “The University of London”, as a Second Respondent and direct that an oral hearing will take place to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence and reasons, through such comprehensive submissions as are required, in order to properly determine the facts of what is said to be within the scope of the request, the subject of this appeal and precisely what information is or is not held by the Public Authority.”

“The second respondent is directed to supply the Tribunal and the parties with detailed written submissions, witness statements, documents, etc.”

Will Judge Kennedy’s order turn up the missing regulations? Perhaps not, however, the University of London could always claim the regulations were lost by librarians—as it once wrongly claimed about President Tsai’s missing thesis.

 AuthorrichardsonreportsPosted onAugust 10, 20232 Comments on Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy orders the University of London to court over missing Ph.D. viva regulations.