FOI internal review 260813002 extension letter

remand or custody records, warrants, bail conditions and associated court administration; 
and 
• 
any retention, destruction, disposal, transfer, accession, file-movement or archive records 
relating to the above, together with any surviving case numbers, file references, register entries or 
archive references. 
It expressly included cause lists, court registers, hearing lists, minute books, court log books, 
bench records, administrative case records, listing records, prosecution correspondence, 
disposal records, retention and destruction schedules, disposal certificates and similar recorded 
information. 
Grounds for review 
The response states that the MoJ holds no information in scope because it “cannot be obtained 
from the administrative systems held for the public authority purposes of HMCTS and MoJ”, and 
that any surviving records “would be held by Glamorgan Archives.” 
I do not consider that this sufficiently establishes that reasonable searches have been undertaken 
for all recorded information falling within the scope of the request. 
1. 
The request was not limited to substantive historic case files. 
It sought administrative, listing, indexing and records-management information that may exist 
within HMCTS or MoJ systems even if the underlying files have subsequently been transferred or 
destroyed. 
The response does not confirm whether these categories were searched. 
2. 
The reference to Glamorgan Archives requires clarification. 
Please confirm whether the statement that any surviving records “would be held by Glamorgan 
Archives” is based upon: 
• 
documented transfer records identifying Glamorgan Archives as the receiving body for 
Barry Magistrates’ Court and/or relevant Cardiff court records of the period; 
[redacted]

• 
HMCTS or MoJ retention, disposal or accession records; or 
• 
a general assumption about the location of historic magistrates’ court records. 
If a documented transfer exists, any such transfer, accession, file-list or related administrative 
record would itself appear to fall within the scope of the request. 
3. 
The response does not describe the searches undertaken. 
For the purposes of the internal review, please confirm: 
• 
which specific MoJ/HMCTS systems, databases, repositories, legacy record series or 
indexes were searched; 
• 
whether historic or legacy records, including any surviving magistrates’ court registers, 
cause lists, hearing lists, minute books, court logs or bench records, were examined in addition to 
current administrative systems; 
• 
whether records relating to the former Barry Magistrates’ Court or to Cardiff proceedings 
during January–March 1989 were considered; 
• 
whether records concerning the retention, transfer or disposal of court files from that 
period were searched; and 
• 
whether any case numbers, file references, register entries or archive references survive 
even if the substantive files do not. 
I appreciate that FOIA does not require a public authority to create information which it does not 
hold. I am not asking MoJ/HMCTS to recreate historic case files or conduct a new investigation. 
The issue for review is whether the searches undertaken were sufficiently broad to identify 
recorded administrative, historical or records-management information falling within the scope of 
my original request. 
If, following review, no information within scope is held, I would be grateful for confirmation of the 
searches undertaken and the systems, repositories or record series examined. 
If any information is held but cannot be disclosed, please identify the relevant exemption(s), 
provide the reasoning required under FOIA, including the public-interest test where applicable, 
and disclose all reasonably segregable information. 
I will pursue any material held by Glamorgan Archives independently. I would nevertheless ask 
the internal review to establish, with specificity, the basis on which MoJ/HMCTS has concluded 
that it holds no information within the scope of the request. 
Regards, 
 
Your request is being handled under the FOIA and the FOI Code of Practice. 
 
Paragraph 5.5 of the FOI Code of Practice allows public authorities to extend the time recommended to 
conduct an Internal Review (20 working days) by a further 20 working days if the review is complex, 
requires consultation with third parties or the relevant information is of a high volume.   
 
Therefore, we are extending the time allowed to 9 October 2026 for the following reason(s): 
 
Complexity of request - further searches being made to ensure that the correct response was given in the 
first instance. 
 
Appeal Rights 
 
If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s 
Office (ICO). The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to 
your request differently, if they consider that we have handled it incorrectly. 
 
You can contact the ICO at the following address: 
 
Information Commissioner’s Office online portal 
https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-and-eir-complaints/ 
 
Postal address 
Information Commissioner's Office 
Wycliffe House 
Water Lane 

Wilmslow 
Cheshire 
[address redacted]
 
Yours sincerely 
 
National Support Unit | HMCTS