• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

QMUL response to PACE trial FoI judgement

deleder2k

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
What happens if the appeal? Will the same tribunal look at the case again, or will the case "move up" in the system? Best regards from a Norwegian that have no idea how this works.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what sanctions can be made against them if they fail to comply with the Tribunal finding, or play a game of delaying release?
Does the ICO have any other powers to enforce the Act?
The Information Commissioner issues decision notices on complaints about specific requests for information. However, if a breach of the Act doesn’t fall within the scope of a decision notice, the ICO may decide to issue an enforcement notice.

The ICO can use an enforcement notice if you have failed to adopt the publication scheme or failed to publish in accordance with it (see What information do we need to publish?).

The Commissioner may also use an enforcement notice if an authority is repeatedly failing to comply with its obligations, which she may have been made aware of from complaints or from other information available to her. For example, the Ministry of Justice publishes statistics for the time different government departments take to respond to requests. Also, problems with the way certain public authorities handle freedom of information requests may be discussed in the media or online. In such cases the Commissioner may issue an enforcement notice covering a number of different requests, whether or not the ICO has received specific complaints. An example would be where the Commissioner becomes aware of a backlog of requests at an authority and orders it to clear this by a given date.

The ICO may also ask you to sign an agreement that you will take a particular course of action to improve your compliance with the Act.

Further information about the Commissioner’s powers can be found in our web pages Taking action – freedom of information and environmental information.

Are there criminal offences in the Freedom of Information Act?
Yes, section 77 states that it is a criminal offence to alter, block, destroy or conceal information.

Depending on the nature of the incident, an authority or its individual members of staff could be charged with this offence. The penalty is a fine.

There are no financial or custodial penalties for failure to provide information on request or for failure to publish information. But you could be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a decision notice, enforcement notice, or information notice. This could lead to a fine or, in theory, jail for a senior officer of the authority.

From https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/complaints/
 
What happens if the appeal? Will the same tribunal look at the case again, or will the case "move up" in the system? Best regards from a Norwegian that have no idea how this works.
They would need a good reason to be able to appeal, this would need to show that a law wasn't properly applied to the latest judgement. There are higher levels of tribunal, although what that practically means I have no idea tbh.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
QMUL statement of PACE trial FOI judgement:

This has been a complex case and the Tribunal’s decision is lengthy. We are studying the decision carefully and considering our response, taking into account the interests of trial participants and the research community..........

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/smd/179331.html

This is not a time to consider a response, This is when you abide by the jury decision, or appeal the appeal, or are in contempt of the law. We do not need further reasons as of why the PACE trial data must not be released. We do not need to hear further that patients are vexatious or the possibility that patients got frustrated by the tremendous injustice.

Give us the data. Speak the language of science and face the judgement of the scientists not just the ones you hand pick, when you share your data. It should not be difficult if you stand by your science.
 
Last edited:

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
The second paragraph of the statement appears a little disingenuous. Is the "and" to be construed conjunctively or disjunctively?

As the data has already been shared with other "cherry picked" researchers, did those researchers satisfy both parts of these self imposed conditions or only the second? Does anyone know what the extent of the express or implied consent is to the sharing of the data?

This seems very odd wording in circumstances where they have had advice from a QC. They have only three options; appeal, comply, or be in breach.

They must know something we don't. One wonders what Damian Green's officials are up to this holiday.
 
Last edited:

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
690

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
This is not a time to consider a response, This is when you abide by the jury decision, or appeal the appeal, or are in contempt of the law. We do not need further reasons as of why the PACE trial data must not be released. We do not need to hear further that patients are vexatious or the possibility that patients got frustrated by the tremendous injustice.

Give us the data. Speak the language of science and face the judgement of the scientists not just the ones you hand pick, when you share your data. It should not be difficult if you stand by your science.

umm "considering an response" to all this. I have to wonder if they are considering making a few alterations here or there before complying. I think these ones thought they were invincible to people studying their misleading research. I think they thought this would all just go away for them sooner or later.

They could of even have believed they were on paths to knighthood.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
I must admit that, with my limited intellectual resources, I am unable to comprehend why a further appeal would be considered preferable to straightforward compliance with the order, or a breach which would allow for the immediate commencement of enforcement proceedings.

I was not aware that this was a form of performance art.
 
Messages
1,446
.
It was not James Coyne who made the FOI which proved successful. And James Coyne is not an ME patient who is directly affected by the continuing presence of CBT/GET in treatment guidelines (the NICE Guidelines for example).

Delaying the release of the PACE data via an Upper Tribunal Appeal is not what the majority of actual ME patients want.

Cowboy antics are not helpful at this point.
.
 
Last edited:

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
This has been a complex case

Poor dears.

I suspect it has been a very complex and difficult mess for them. Perhaps they are too shy to ask for some proper academic support? There is a good community college not 20 minutes away from me - perhaps I should solicit their assistance on behalf of QMUL?
 

Jill

Senior Member
Messages
209
Location
Auckland, NZ
I wonder if they might release the data and say that as science has moved on that its not their fault that the criteria used has changed over the time frame . Ie try to put themselves in some sort of goodl light that the science media can spin well fit them . My true thoughts are that they'll just delay, delay delay . Just like all nasty divorce cases
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Poor dears.

I suspect it has been a very complex and difficult mess for them. Perhaps they are too shy to ask for some proper academic support? There is a good community college not 20 minutes away from me - perhaps I should solicit their assistance on behalf of QMUL?

I think it is actually a simple case.

Is the requested data PII (as in personally identifiable info) and the court ruled that it wasn't and this was despite QMUL having an 'expert' witness in this area so he failed to make a strong argument that the data could be used to trace patients.

The concerns of patients and independent academics demonstrated there was a public interest and given that QMUL failed to demonstrate that the purpose was vexatious or aimed at doing them harm.

Seems simple to me.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Coyne is being sarcastic, and reminding the PACE authors that an attempt to appeal at the Upper Tribunal would only result in their humiliation.

PS: and yes he only played a small part in the case, being just one of the academics who sided with patients, but he has promised to re-analyze Chalder's mediation analysis which allegedly proved that a change in fearful beliefs improved physical functioning.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,786
I wonder if they might release the data and say that as science has moved on that its not their fault that the criteria used has changed over the time frame .
No, without the Oxford criteria, they don't have careers. With Oxford, starting 25 years ago, they were able to prop up their ridiculous claims by heavily populating their studies with people who had mood disorders but were physically healthy.

This can be seen in some early studies where half or more participants were concurrently being treated for psychological problems, and VO2 max scores were pretty normal at the start of CBT/GET trials. Of course, they've shifted away from objective outcomes since then :rolleyes: