> Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.
Those sections are referring to disclosure, not "acquiring" information. As paragraph (c) points out, illegal acquired information is not
> Here you go.
Well, that is fairly damning and hardly a moment of glory for the people involved. I have to give you that point.
But fortunately, I can still retreat to ad hominem.
> > Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.
You keep re-iterating it. I fail to see it written in law.
> Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.
Hardly, because if the request was denied, they are de jure not subject to FOIA request.
So it is not within his rights to release the mail. That is why the police is investigating that person, instead of the scientists.