※ 引述《Doombringer (道不远人~)》之铭言：
: 如果这个是真的 是不是还彭文正公道了
: 英国高等行政法院裁定：
: 伦敦政经学院在蔡英文论文门丑闻中违反了自由资讯流通法案！
: 英国高等行政法院命令伦敦政经学院须在28天内透露丑闻实情！
: 英国高等行政法院也裁定：
: 1.蔡英文的论文根本不存在！
: 2.蔡英文的两位口试委员是蔡英文自记瞎扳捏造出来的！
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdWVClQoijY
相关判决连结：
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2022/2021_0373.html&query=(michael)+AND+(richardson)
我似乎没有找到另一个上诉人是Michael Richardson而且在2022的判决
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.
需要探讨的是LSE的确有机率是并不持有这些被要求的资讯的(蔡的论文)
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.
换句话说，这份裁定是说
上诉人第一个主张-LSE持有蔡英文的资料，应根据法规揭露
法院认可了LSE 可能持有蔡英文的相关资料
第二个主张，法院认为蔡英文可以在不违反第三者隐私权的状况下仅许可揭露其个人资料
而在Decision Notice中没有讨论到的部分法院无法决定
第三个主张，法院的裁量权仅及于Decision Notice，而无法对LSE如何回应(上诉人)请求
做出评论
基于此，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:法院发现2021的DN有误，题述资讯由LSE持有
B:LSE应在28天内回应原始的资讯请求，要不就是揭露，要不就是提出任何豁免主张。
那如果从那时到现在4个月，LSE要不就是已经揭露，或是它真的不需要揭露XDDD
这个六月份的裁定中从头到尾没有说蔡的论文不存在耶