FOI disclosures

Request

1. What are your department's total greenhouse gas emissions in CO2e? Please exclude emissions from any of your executive agencies or NDPBs from your figures - we just want emissions from your non-ministerial government department.

2. By what percentage have your total greenhouse gas emissions in CO2e reduced/increased since 2021? Please exclude emissions from any of your executive agencies or NDPBs from your figures - we just want emissions from your non-ministerial government department.

3. By what percentage have your total greenhouse gas emissions in CO2e reduced/increased since 2019? Please exclude emissions from any of your executive agencies or NDPBs from your figures - we just want emissions from your non-ministerial government department.

4. What % of energy used by your central department buildings is generated from renewable sources (This does not include energy purchased under 'green' tariffs.)? Please exclude energy use from any of your executive agencies or NDPBs from your figures - we just want figures from your non-ministerial government department.

5. How many of your buildings have an efficiency rating of C or above (that is the one accepted as OK). Please exclude efficiency ratings from any of your executive agency or NDPB buildings from your figures - we just want figures from your non-ministerial government department buildings.

6. How many of your buildings have an efficiency rating of D or below? Please exclude efficiency ratings from any of your executive agency or NDPB buildings from your figures - we just want figures from your non-ministerial government department buildings.

Response

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the UKSC holds some of the information requested and I have outlined the answers to your questions below.

1. You do not specify a time period in your request. However, the UKSC's total greenhouse emissions for the last financial year from April 2021 to March 2022 was 211,475.21 CO2e.

2. There has been an increase in CO2e of 8.7% since 2021.

3. There has been a reduction of CO2e since 2019 of 20.5%.

4. The UKSC does not hold this information and so we are unable to answer this aspect of your request.

5. We only have one building and it has an energy rating of C.

6. Zero.

Request

To provide an estimate for the total cost of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Scottish independence.

Response

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The information you have requested is not held by the UK Supreme Court.

The running of court hearings forms part of the general running costs of the Court and so it is not possible to calculate the cost of an individual hearing. If you require information about how much the parties themselves spent on the hearing, you should contact them directly about this.

As you may be aware, there are a number of exemptions contained within the FOIA. The information you have requested would be held in a court record. Court records are exempt from release under section 32, the relevant exemption here being either or both of 32(1)(a) and (c) of the FOIA. This is an absolute exemption so there is no requirement to consider the public interest in disclosing such information.

Parties submissions and documents filed in the Supreme Court do not come under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and are not publicly available, they are only available on formal application to the Registrar together with the requisite fee of £350.00 (see Practice Direction 7.2.6) Part of this application requires seeking the views of the parties on the release of the documents. You should therefore first contact the relevant parties and see if they are willing to let you have the documents as you can get them directly from the parties without the need to make the formal application.

Request

Please could you provide the name of the supplier(s) who provides CCTV systems to your department as well as the brand and total number of cameras included. Please also state the length of the contract with any such supplier(s) and the annual cost of the contract.

Response

Your requests have been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The UKSC can neither confirm nor deny that it holds an information relating to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(3) provides an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held.

Section 38(2) provides an exemption from disclosing information if it would endanger any individual (including the applicant, the supplier of information, or anyone else).

Summaries of these exemptions are included at the end of this letter, for your ease of reference.

Sections 31(3) and 38(2) are a qualified prejudice based exemptions and require a public interest test to be carried out before they can be relied upon. These tests are outlined below.

Public Interest Tests

Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31(3)

Confirming or denying information relating to the supplier(s) of CCTV systems to the UKSC, the brand and total number of cameras, the length of the contract with any such supplier(s), and the annual cost of the contract, would provide an insight into the UKSC. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the Court's security and surveillance operations. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.

Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31(3)

Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the UKSC's CCTV systems - the supplier, brand, total number of cameras, contract length, annual costs - would have the effect of compromising the safety of Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors at risk and could, potentially, be used to prevent the system recording any incidents in or around the Court building.

To reveal the numbers, make of camera and the fact that the system is supported by software would make UKSC systems vulnerable to attack and prejudice the safety of anyone in the building. This would compromise law enforcement tactics and would also hinder evidence should it be needed for future investigations.

By confirming or denying whether any information is held in relation to the use of CCTV products would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

The UKSC would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on Court and police resources and more crime would be committed, placing individuals at risk.

It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held. Confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.

Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 38(2)

Confirming or denying whether any information is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what security and surveillance measures are in place at the UKCS. By confirming or denying information regarding the UKSC's CCTV systems - the supplier, brand, total number of cameras, contract length, annual costs - it would lead to a better-informed public.

Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 38(2)

By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render the UKSC's security measures less effective. To release the information could put the safety of Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors at risk and could, potentially, be used to prevent the system recording any incidents in or around the Court building.

To reveal the numbers, make of camera and the fact that the system is supported by software would make UKSC systems vulnerable to attack and prejudice the safety of anyone in the building. This would lead to the compromise of the UKSC's operations and increase the risk of physical harm to Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors.

To do so would likely have a detrimental effect, through endangerment, on the Court and individuals. There is a causal link between endangerment to Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors and disclosure of the information.

Balance test

Overall harm in confirming or denying whether the information requested is held.

Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large.

Confirming or denying that information is held regarding the UKSC's CCTV would have the effect of compromising the safety and security of Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors at risk and could, potentially, be used to prevent the system recording any incidents in or around the Court building. Further considerations include the need to ensure the UKSC's system is not vulnerable to attack or hacking.

To publish details of the Court's systems could make them more susceptible to hacking, enabling hackers to target specific areas of the Court's systems. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient court service, as well as a failure in providing a duty of care to Justices, UKSC staff, and court visitors.

The security of the UKSC, its Justices, staff and visitors is of paramount importance. As such, we will not divulge whether any information is or is not held as, to do so would place the safety of individuals at risk, undermine security or compromise law enforcement.

Request

Please confirm the name, position and contact details (telephone number and email address) of the person responsible for arranging and administering the Authority's insurances.

• Which classes of commercial insurance do the Authority currently procure? When are these policies due for renewal?
• How much does the Authority spend annually on its insurance premium?
• Please confirm the name of the Authority's current insurance broker/advisor (if applicable).
• When was the contract for insurance broking services last reviewed/tendered
• When will the current contract for insurance brokerage services expire? Is this subject to a potential extension?

Response

As a non-ministerial government department we are self-insurers and cannot therefore offer any details of general insurances. The Court does however hold insurance for the artworks in the building and the information you requested has therefore been answered based on this cover.

Please confirm the name, position and contact details (telephone number and email address) of the person responsible for arranging and administering the Authority's insurances.

Paul Brigland - Head of Building and IT

Email: paul.brigland@supremecourt.uk

07786676348

1. As stated above, as a non-ministerial government department we are self-insurers and therefore do not have general commercial insurance. The Court does hold insurance for the artworks that are on display in the building. Based on this, we are providing information related to that insurance here.
2. Art insurance per annum is £2,682.92
3. Willis Tower Watson
4. The art insurance contract began on 18th June 2021.
5. The art insurance contract is due to expire on 17th June 2022.

Request

I'm [text redacted] trying to obtain a copy of the Supreme Court's Permission of Appeal in the McCord case. Here are the details:In the matter of an application by Raymond McCord for Judicial Review No 2 (AP) (Northern Ireland), UKSC 2020/0152, Neutral Citation Number: [2020] NICA 11241. Permission was refused on 30 March 2021.

Response

As you may be aware, there are several exemptions contained within the FOIA.

Having assessed your request, we have decided to withhold the information you requested under section 32(1) of the FOIA. Section 32(1) states that any document filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter is information that is exempt from release.

You can find more information about the section 32 (court, inquiry or arbitration records) exemption via this link: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2014222/section-32-court-inquiry-arbitration-records.pdf.

In line with the exemption outlined above, parties' submissions and documents filed in the Supreme Court are not publicly available. They are, however, available on formal application to the Registrar together with the requisite fee of £350.00 (see Practice Direction 7.2.6). Part of this application requires the views of the parties on the release of the documents.

You should therefore contact the relevant parties, as if they are willing to let you have the documents you would be able to obtain them directly from the parties without the need to make the formal application.

Request

Contract 1 - contact centre/call centre contracts

Please send me the following information for each provider:

1. Incumbent Supplier: For each of the contract(s) please can you provide me with the supplier of the contract.
2. Annual Average Spend: the annual average (over 3 years) spends for each supplier
3. Contract Expiry: the date of when the contract expires.
4. Contract Review: the date of when the contract will be reviewed.
5. Contract Description: a brief description of the services provided of the overall contract.
6. Contact Details: The person from within the organisation responsible for the contract. Please provide me with their full name, actual job title, contact number and direct email address.
7. Number of Agents; please provide me with the total number of contact centre agents.
8. Number of Sites; please can you provide me with the number of sites the contact centre covers.
9. Manufacturer of the contact centre: Who is the manufacturer of the contact centre system that you operate?
10. Busy Periods: Please state the month(s) which the contact centre is at its highest/busiest during the year. This can be based upon the number of calls. Your provider may be able to tell you quicker. E.g., JAN-MAR, APR, JUNE.
11. Do you use Microsoft Exchange 2003 as your email server? If not, then which product do you use?
12. Number of email users: Approximate number of email users across the organisations.

Please add any further comments attached to this contract if there are any changes coming to the organisation with regards to contact centres.

The second part of my request relates to the use inbound network services contracts which could relate to one of the following:

1. 0800, 0845, 0870, 0844, 0300 number
2. Routing of calls
3. Caller Identifier
4. Caller Profile- linking caller details with caller records
5. Interactive voice response (IVR)

For contract relating to the above please can you provide me with?

1. Incumbent Supplier: For each of the contract(s) please can you provide me with the supplier of the contract.
2. Annual Average Spend: the annual average (over 3 years) spends for each supplier
3. Contract Expiry: the date of when the contract expires.
4. Contract Review: the date of when the contract will be reviewed.
5. Contract Description: a brief description of the services provided of the overall contract.
6. Contact Details: The person from within the organisation responsible for the contract. Please provide me with their full name, actual job title, contact number and direct email address.

Response

We can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.

The UK Supreme Court does not have contact centre or call centre, therefore questions 1-12 in the first part of your request and questions 1-5 in the second part of your request are not applicable. The Court does not use any of the numbers or services listed in the second part of your request, therefore the final five questions are also not applicable.

Request

1. How many British Muslim employees have you recruited? Please provide figures for every year since 2010.

2. What is the average length of service?

3. How many British Muslims have you employed in communications/media roles since 2010?

Response

We can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested. Staff are not required to formally declare their religious beliefs or faith to the Human Resources department.

Request for internal review received:

Please review if you hold this information.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: [web address redacted]

Response to internal review:

On behalf of the Supreme Court, I have reviewed the original decision and have decided today, 20th April 2022, not to vary the original decision made as the Court does not hold the information you have requested.

However, I can confirm that following a voluntary cross Court survey conducted in 2021, one employee declared themselves as Muslim. The Court holds no further information on that person, where they work or their length of service. I can confirm that no records are held prior to 2021.

Request

Please could you answer the following questions in line with the Freedom Of Information Act and provide any further guidance on the matter, that you may deem helpful:

1. Has the Supreme Court received an application to review the Adams vs Carey Pensions case (now called Options)?
2. If no, is there a time limit from judgement of the Court of Appeal, in which an application to the Supreme Court must be made?
3. If yes, is there a time frame in which the Supreme Court must decide whether the application has been given permission to appeal?
4. If permission to appeal is granted, what is the normal time frame for a case to be heard?
5. If permission to appeal is rejected, is that the end of the matter, or is there another legal option for Options e.g. refer to an EU court or elsewhere?

Response

We can confirm that we hold the information you have requested. We have addressed each question in turn, below.

1. Yes.
2. Not applicable. See above.
3. The application is currently with the panel and is expected to be determined within the next 4 or 5 weeks.
4. Cases are listed to counsels' availability and the listing window is usually 6-12 months after the parties give their agreed time estimate.
5. If refused the Appellant will have exhausted all his domestic remedies.

Request

This is an information request relating to payments made to charities and third sector organisations.

Please provide the following information for 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21:

The value of grants made to each of the organisations listed below. Please provide the information for each of the three financial years separately, and list all grants separately.

The value of loans made to each of the organisations listed below. Please provide the information for each of the three financial years separately, and list all loans separately.

The payments made to charities and third sector organisations relate to the following only:

• Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH)
• Independent Sage
• NHS Confederation
• Keep our NHS public
• SOS NHS
• Care and Support Workers Organise
• UNITED VOICES OF THE WORLD
• Health Campaigns Together
• Doctors for the NHS
• We Own It
• The People's Assembly
• Zero Covid Coalition
• Health Campaign Together
• Docs Not Cops
• British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin
• Association of Pakistani Physicians of Northern Europe
• Royal College of General Practitioners
• Royal College of Ophthalmology
• Royal College of Psychiatrists
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Response

Zero grants and zero loans were made by the UK Supreme Court to any of the organisations you have listed in your request for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 or 2020-21.

It may be helpful to know that the UK Supreme Court has not made any charitable grants or loans to any organisations (including those listed in your request).

Request

Please can you provide me with information provided to the Home Office, other than the judgement itself, in relation to the requirements the Supreme Court instructed the Home Office, as a government department, to comply with the Supreme Court judgement [2018] UKSC 6 as they appear to be reluctant to comply with the judgement given.

The particular court case is the Supreme Court judgement [2018] UKSC 6, and known as the Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) v Romein (Respondent) (Scotland) case, heard by five (5) Supreme Court judges, including the then Judge President Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black and delivered by Lord Sumption on 8 February 2018.

Response

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

We confirm that we hold the information you have requested. The information that we hold is a court order.

The wording of this order is:

THE COURT ORDERED that

1) The appeal be dismissed and the interlocutor made by the Inner House on 27 April 2016 affirmed under exception of the declarator as to the proper construction of section 4C(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981

2) The parties file written submissions on costs within 28 days of the date of this Order. With regards to court documents related to this case, these are not publicly available. They are only available on formal application to the Registrar together with the requisite fee of £350.00 (see Practice Direction 7.2.6). Part of this application requires the views of the parties on the release of the documents. You should therefore contact the relevant parties and if they are willing to let you have the documents you can get them directly from the parties without the need to make the formal application. If you do want to contact the registrar about this you can email her team by emailing registry@supremecourt.uk.

More information about the practice directions is available on our website: https://www.supremecourt.uk/procedures/practice-direction-07.html

If you require a copy of the order above which is charged at £5, please contact the Registry by email at registry@supremecourt.uk.

Request

We need to know as part of the freedom of information Act, which similar cases, others members of the public have brought to your attention or the attention of the lower courts, since 2010.

Response

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

As you may be aware, there are a number of exemptions contained within the FOIA. The information you have requested is exempt from release under the provisions of section 21 of the Act (information accessible to applicant by other means). This is because the information is already in the public domain, as all cases and Permission to Appeal application results are published on the UK Supreme Court website under 'Current cases', 'Decided cases' and 'Permission to Appeal' (in 'Latest News').

You can find more information about the section 21 exemption via this link: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1203/information-reasonably-accessible-to-the-applicant-by-other-means-sec21.pdf

We do not hold information about cases brought to the attention of the lower courts as our organisations are separate. For this, you would have to contact the court you wish to seek the information from directly.