s(2), FoIA 2000. (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=freedom+of+information&Year=2000&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1876329&ActiveTextDocId=1876335&filesize=4435) Most of the exemptions in Part II of the Act can be overridden by the public interest test, although there are still several sections that are absolutely exempt.
This still feeds in to the point about the Rule of Law, though. Parliament has already recognized that there may be circumstances in which the public interest (as determined by the courts/tribunal/ICO) may need additional balancing factors. In particular, I can't see the High Court wanting to get its hands dirty with the realities of politics. In that sense, the veto allows political concerns to be handled alongside legal ones.
That's not to say that this was a good thing for the Act to say - and nor is this sentence saying that it was a bad thing for it to say. But the point is that the Rule of Law in the UK is tightly interwoven with Parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty, and this is what Parliament voted for - a political check on a legal process.
no subject
This still feeds in to the point about the Rule of Law, though. Parliament has already recognized that there may be circumstances in which the public interest (as determined by the courts/tribunal/ICO) may need additional balancing factors. In particular, I can't see the High Court wanting to get its hands dirty with the realities of politics. In that sense, the veto allows political concerns to be handled alongside legal ones.
That's not to say that this was a good thing for the Act to say - and nor is this sentence saying that it was a bad thing for it to say. But the point is that the Rule of Law in the UK is tightly interwoven with Parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty, and this is what Parliament voted for - a political check on a legal process.