Tag Archives: Tribunal

October 12, 2025 · 9:50 am

Tribunal: unincorporated associations are not companies for the purposes of FOIA

The question of whether a body is a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is determined by asking (up to) three questions:

1: is it listed in Schedule 1 to FOIA?
2: has it been designated as a public authority by order by the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office?
3: is it a company wholly owned by the wider public sector, or by the Crown (or by both of those)?

If the answer to all of those is “no”, then the body is not a public authority, and it is not obliged to comply with FOIA, no matter how much it might seem or look like a public authority.

These issues arose in a recent case in the First-tier Tribunal, following a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office that the Conference of Colleges of the University of Oxford (the “Conference”) – an unincorporated association – was not a FOIA public authority.

It is accepted that the University of Oxford is a public authority, as is each of the colleges of the University (see paragraph 53 of Schedule 1 FOIA). The appeal to the Tribunal was based on argument by the appellant (“The Association Of Precarious Postdoctoral Researchers Ltd”) that the Conference, being a body created by the constituent colleges, met the definition of a “company” wholly owned by those colleges. Although FOIA does not define “company”, certain other legislative provisions do, including section 1121 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, pursuant to which it is defined as meaning “any body corporate or unincorporated association…”.

That argument, however – held the Tribunal – actually counted against the appellant, because in the absence of clear legislative intent to broaden the term for the purposes of FOIA, it should take its ordinary English use: “unincorporated associations are not considered to be caught by the normal definition of a ‘company’ and…Parliament will make express provision to include them where it intends to do”.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal

Tagged as , ,

March 12, 2025 · 4:50 am

Cabinet Office wins Covid face masks FOIA appeal

The Information Tribunal has overturned a decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office and ruled that the Cabinet Office is not required to disclose minutes of meetings in June and July 2020 at which policy decisions were taken to make mandatory the wearing of face masks in shops and on public transport.

It is a shame that, for a decision of some import, the judgment reads like a stream-of-consciousness draft, and that it is infused with unnecessary sarcasm at various points.

The ICO had determined that although the exemption at s35 FOIA (for information relating to the formulation of government policy) was engaged. He acknowledged the importance of a protected space for government decision-making, and of the principle of collective responsibility, but decided that the “exceptionally weighty” public interest favoured disclosure.

The Tribunal, however, via reasoning which is – frankly – very difficult to follow, appears to have focused on the issue of “accountability”, something that the requester had mentioned rather in passing in support of his request, but which was not a matter expressly mentioned in the ICO’s decision. Having fixed on this concept, the Tribunal appears to have decided that as those in government at the time have since been held accountable in various ways, there was diminished public interest in achieving accountability by way of disclosure of the requested information. The key passage is probably this (at 57):

In considering the context of this request there is a stark contrast between the salience and effectiveness of other multiple forms of accountability…and the value of the information sought – in contrast with the risk of harm to the functioning of government caused by its release disproportionate to any benefit.

I do not say the Tribunal has necessarily got this wrong, but I do say that this a FOIA case of some significance, and that it warranted a clearer judgment.

Whether the judgment is amenable to an appeal is not entirely clear, but it’s worth pointing out that the original requester was not a party to, and was not joined to, these proceedings, and so I do not believe he himself has a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and one wonders whether the ICO will have the enthusiasm to do so, given the costs involved.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cabinet Office, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments

Tagged as , ,

December 5, 2024 · 5:57 am

FOIA costs decision against applicant for failing to withdraw contempt application

A freedom of information requester is facing costs in what seems to have been a bit of a shambles before the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). I think this is rather concerning, albeit slightly convoluted, and, frankly, the whole thing is not assisted by a judgment that is strewn with errors and lacks coherence. In what follows I’ve had to piece together some of the information missing, or unclear, from the judgment.

It appears that the requester (AHB) had made a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to the Royal Mint on 19 June (not July, as the FTT judgment says) 2021 for information about its “Garbled Coin Policy” in relation to repatriated UK currency. On 16 July 2021 The Royal Mint replied with what appears to have been a short narrative response. AHB complained to the Information Commissioner (ICO) on 28 September 2021, and ten months later the ICO held (very peremptorily, and rather oddly, I would say) that the Royal Mint held no information in relation to the original request.

AHB then appealed to the FTT and in a judgment of 3 October 2023 (the “2023 judgment”) the FTT held that the ICO had either or both erred in law, or in the exercise of his discretion, because the Royal Mint held further information in relation to the request. It issued a judgment constituting a substitute decision notice (SDN), under which the Royal Mint was ordered to issue a fresh decision within 35 days of the date on which the SDN was promulgated. The judgment specifically says “Failure to comply with this decision may result in the Tribunal making written certification of this fact pursuant to section 61 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be dealt with as a contempt of court”. The Royal Mint had chosen not to join itself to those proceedings and neither AHB nor the ICO had applied for it to be joined.

It is not at all clear, from the judgment, what happened next, but it appears that the SDN, with its Order that the Royal Mint issue a fresh response, was not served on the Royal Mint itself (presumably this error arose from its not having been a party, although it was aware of the proceedings). Then, on 9 December 2023, having received no fresh response, and no doubt taking his cue from the SDN, AHB made an application to the FTT under section 61(4) of FOIA for the Royal Mint to be certified to the Upper Tribunal for contempt of court.

It appears that the FTT finally served the SDN on the Royal Mint on 22 December 2023 (the judgment at several points has this as the obviously impossible “22 December 2024”).

One assumes, at this point, that, although the SDN was not served on the Royal Mint until the time of 35 days from 3 October 2023 had already passed, the Order in the SDN still had effect. That being the case, it appears to have been incumbent on the Royal Mint’s lawyers to make an urgent application, for instance for compliance with the Order to be waived, for relief from sanctions and for a new date for compliance to be set. Instead, they did not take action until 3 January 2024, when they wrote to the FTT suggesting that a response would be provided within a further 35 days. However, this was just correspondence – no actual application was made.

Eventually, a response was issued by the Royal Mint in relation to the SDN, on 5 February 2024, more than two-and-a-half years after AHB made his request.

AHB’s application for a contempt certification was still live though, and here I pause to observe that, on the information available, I am not surprised he took no action to withdraw it. He had been vindicated by the FTT’s SDN of 3 October 2023, and he was unaware that the SDN had erroneously not been served on the Royal Mint (in fact, it is not at all clear at what point he did become aware of this). In any case, as no application was made by the Royal Mint for further time, the Order in the SDN must still have been in effect. In fact the judgment alludes to this when it notes that AHB was “indicating” in his contempt application that the final Royal Mint response “was provided 125 days after the Substituted Decision Notice was issued and 90 days later than directed”.

In any event, the FTT declined to certify the failure to comply on time as contempt, because

whilst the Tribunal does consider that the Respondent could have acted more diligently on becoming aware of the Substituted Decision Notice, by applying for an extension of time and requesting permission to extend the time set out in the SDN, the Tribunal does not consider that [the Royal Mint’s lawyer] wilfully avoided complying with the order. The Tribunal accepts that he was simply not aware of the appropriate course of action to take in circumstances where a Court or Tribunal imposed a deadline that had already been missed. In any event, the approach taken is not sufficiently serious to warrant certification to the Upper Tribunal for contempt and the application is refused. [emphasis added]

I will pause here to say that it’s unusual, to say the least, for a court to accept a submission that a solicitor was not aware of what to do when in receipt of an order of a court. Most judges would be quite intolerant of such an argument.

But the story does not end there. In submissions dated 17 July 2024 the Royal Mint then “indicated an intention to pursue an application for the costs ‘of and associated with’ the [contempt] application”. Under rule 10 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 the FTT may make an order in respect of costs but only if it considers that a party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings.

And, remarkably, the FTT acceded to the costs application, on the grounds that AHB did not withdraw his application for the FTT to certify the Royal Mint’s (undoubted) failure to comply with the 3 October 2023 Order, after he had finally received the fresh response of 5 February 2024. The FTT also took into account AHB’s reference to pursuing a “campaign” to encourage greater transparency.

But does this mean AHB has “acted unreasonably in…conducting the proceedings”? I’m far from convinced (in fact, I’m not convinced). The FTT says

The Tribunal does not consider that it is reasonable (or that any other reasonable person would consider it reasonable) for an application for a party to be certified to the Upper Tribunal for contempt of court to be used as part of a campaign to encourage greater transparency…The Tribunal considers that the obligation to deal with cases fairly, justly, and proportionately in circumstances where the Applicant accepts that he was in appropriately [sic] pursuing a “campaign” for other purposes and where the chances of success in relation to the Tribunal actually certifying the contempt may be limited may justify the making of a costs order against the Applicant.

Well, if I’m to be considered a reasonable person, then I do not think it unreasonable for a person to decide not to withdraw such an application where they have waited more than two-and-half years for an answer from a public authority to a simple FOIA request, and where the public authority has failed to comply with an Order, because its lawyer chose not to acquaint himself with procedural rules. Unreasonableness imposes a very high threshold, and this is shown by the fact that costs awards are extraordinarily rare in FOIA cases in the FTT (from my research I have only found two, in the twenty-odd years FOIA has been in effect, and one of those was overturned on appeal). AHB may have been tenacious, perhaps overly so, and he may have ancillary reasons for (some of) his conduct, but – again – that does not connote unreasonableness.

Costs have not yet been awarded, as the FTT has adjourned for submissions on AHB’s means, and a breakdown of the Royal Mint’s costs.

I should end by saying there may be other material not in the public domain which provides a gloss on AHB’s conduct of the proceedings, but one can (and must) only go on what is in the public domain.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, contempt, costs, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments

Tagged as , , ,

December 3, 2024 · 6:00 am

I don’t think that word means what you think it means

[reposted from LinkedIn]

I think there’s a plain error of law in this Information Tribunal judgment (O’Hanlon & Anor v Information Commissioner & Anor [2024] UKFTT 1061 (GRC)).

Section 36(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) says that information is exempt if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or would otherwise prejudice (or would be likely to do so) the effective conduct of public affairs.

I’ve written elsewhere about the flawed concept of who a “qualified person” is, but, at least in relation to govt departments, it’s straightforward: it’s a minister (s36(5)(a)).

In June 2022, Lord True, Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, in the context of a then-live FOIA request, gave a s36 “reasonable opinion”, as a qualified person, that internal department email addresses were exempt, and – crucially – that his opinion was to apply “going forward” in relation to any similar requests. Subsequently, the Cabinet Office applied his opinion to a new request which was received after he had given it.

The ICO said this was not permitted: “the provisions of s36 only become relevant once a request for information has been made…a Qualified Person’s opinion must therefore necessarily post-date the request for the information, and must be an opinion relating to the specific request”.

Not so, said the Tribunal: s36(6)(b) allows an “authorisation” to be “general”, and, therefore “a general authorisation must include be [sic] forward looking to other requests”.

But that is not what “authorisation” means in s36: the word only occurs, prior to s36(6)(b), in s36(5), and it refers to the authorisation of persons as qualified persons to give a reasonable opinion. In other words, the qualified person gives an opinion – not an “authorisation”. The reference in s36(6)(b) to an authorisation being permitted to be “general” is followed by “or limited to specific classes of case” – i.e. a person may be authorised in general to give a reasonable opinion, or authorised (perhaps they have a specialism) only in certain cases).

It does not mean that they are “authorised” to give a prospective qualified opinion that classes of information will always be exempt (subject to a public interest test).

The Tribunal’s reading of s36(6)(b) heavily informed its judgment, and it’s certainly questionable whether, but for this error, it would have decided in favour of giving this “prospective effect” to some s36 qualified opinions.

One hopes the ICO will appeal – because there will otherwise be a risk that public authorities will start classifying, of their own accord, certain classes of information as “always exempt”.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments

Tagged as , ,

October 20, 2024 · 10:02 am

The missing page about the missing PhD

[reposted from LinkedIn]

[EDIT: you win some, you get the wrong end of the stick on some. It was pointed out to me that the ICO removes items from its disclosure log after two years, which is why the document no longer shows up, and in the comments below I was taken to a copy of the document at WhatDoTheyKnow. Both these points have been confirmed to me in an FOI response from the ICO. What mislead me into thinking there was something more going on was probably the Tribunal’s reference to a “new policy”: it clearly wasn’t so much a policy, as a statement that the ICO would rely on s17(6) FOIA to refuse to reply to future requests, on the grounds that a vexatious campaign was being pursued.]

This is plain odd.

For several years the The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and, consequently, the Information Commissioner’s Office has had to deal to with FOI requests about former Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen’s “missing PhD dissertation” (for some background, see here (I don’t vouch for its accuracy)).

A number of these requests have been refused on the grounds of vexatiousness, with many upheld on referral to the ICO.

The Information Tribunal has recently given judgment on one of these, and ruled in favour of the appellant, holding that the request was not vexatious. But what struck me was the fact that both the appellant and the ICO cited in evidence a page (a hosted pdf, going by the URL) on the ICO’s website. The judgment says this

The Appellant stated in his grounds of appeal that after he had complained to the Commissioner about the Authority’s response to the Request, the Commissioner published on the ICO’s website (by reference to a disclosure log) a new policy of not processing FOIA requests seeking information on President Tsai Ing-wen’s PhD.

But a footnote (screenshotted here) correctly notes that the link does not go to this page, and further, I can’t find any sign of it on the UK government web archive or the Wayback Machine. An advanced Google search on the ICO website throws no light.

So I’ve made an FOI request to the ICO, and will update when I get a response.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

4 Comments

Filed under access to information, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments

Tagged as , ,

August 30, 2024 · 3:48 am

Pseudonymous FOI requests are not valid requests

[reposted from LinkedIn]

For a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be a valid one it must, under section 8, be in writing, describe the information requested and state “the name of the applicant” and an address for correspondence.

Does the name have to be the person’s real name?

“Yes”, says Judge Griffin (uncontroversially) when striking out an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.

In the case, a person purporting to be “Simon Shannon” had made a (purported) request for information to the Civil Aviation Authority, which was partly refused, on the basis that the specific information was not held. “Simon Shannon” then made a (purported) complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office who issued a (purported) decision notice upholding the refusal.

“Simon Shannon” then brought a (purported) appeal before the Tribunal. In his application he listed his address as “The Houses of Parliament”. This led the ICO to ask the Tribunal to direct that “Simon Shannon” give his real address. This then led to “Simon Shannon” applying to have the purported appeal struck out and for permission to lodge a new appeal in the name of Thomas Deacon – his real name.

The problem with this was, the judge pointed out, that as s8 FOIA requires that a request state “the” name of the applicant, rather than “a” name, this means that a pseudonym will not suffice, and a request made in the name of a pseudonym, as had been the case with “Simon Shannon”, was not a valid request. And there is a reason this matters:

“When an applicant uses a pseudonym to make a request to a public authority
that authority is deprived of the opportunity to consider whether those parts
of the Act [such as when considering whether requests are vexatious, or whether aggregated costs of two or more requests exceed the appropriate limit] to which the applicant’s identity is relevant apply to the request.”

It followed that, as the request was not a valid request, the ICO “unknown to him, had no power to consider a complaint under section 50 of the Act, nor to issue a decision notice”. And it further followed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction – it could not simply permit the appeal to be remade in the person’s real name, because there was no ICO decision capable of being appealed.

None of this is especially new to FOI practitioners and lawyers, but the judgment is a clear and helpful explainer of the issues.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, pseudonym

Tagged as , ,

August 25, 2024 · 8:47 am

Manifestly EIR

[reposted from LinkedIn]

I’m dumbfounded how a public authority, all of the staff at the Information Commissioner’s Office – including its litigation lawyers – and the three people hearing the appeal in the Information Tribunal, failed to identify that this request clearly should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and not the Freedom of Information Act 2000 – it’s about land use, a boundary dispute and planning. The ICO decision notice even states that “it relates to the status of the Council’s land adjacent to the complainant’s property”.

It may be that, on analysis, the request – which was refused on the grounds that it was vexatious – a decision with which both the ICO and Tribunal agreed – would have been considered manifestly unreasonable under the EIR, but that is no excuse. The refusal was wrong as a matter of law, the ICO decision notice is wrong as a matter of law, and the Tribunal judgment is wrong as a matter of law.

I have raised this issue before of public authorities, ICO and the Tribunal failing to deal with requests under the correct regime. I’m now minded to raise the issue formally with, at least, the ICO.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, Environmental Information Regulations, FOIA, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal

Tagged as , , ,

July 18, 2024 · 4:21 am

FOIA appeals in the UT: when is there an “error of law”?

Here is a good and interesting judgment in the Upper Tribunal from Judge Citron, on a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) case arising from defects in the 2019 “11+” exam run by The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools (TBGS), with test materials designed and supplied by a third party – GL Assessment Limited. TBGS, as a limited company made up of a consortium of state schools, is a public authority under s6(1)(b) FOIA (by way of s6(2)(b)).

The FOI request was, in broad terms, for the analysis that had subsequently been conducted into the defects, and the statistical solution that had been adopted.

TBGS had refused the request on grounds including that disclosure of the requested information would be an actionable breach of confidence. The ICO upheld this, and, on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal agreed, although only by a majority decision (the dissent was on the part of the judge, and it’s worth reading his reasons, at 85-90 of the FTT judgment).

Possibly bolstered by the vehemence of that dissenting view of the FTT judge, the applicant appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

Judge Citron’s judgment is a measured one, addressing how an appellate court should approach an argument to the effect that there was an error of law at first instance, with a run-through, at 35, of the authorities (unfortunately, from that point, the paragraph numbering goes awry, because the judgment, at “67”, follows the numbering of the judgment it has just quoted).

Judge Citron twice notes that a different FTT might have approached the facts and the evidence in a different way, and weighted them differently, but

that is no indicator of the evaluative judgement reached being in error of law…The question is whether the evaluative judgement…was one no reasonable tribunal could have reached on the evidence before it; it whether some material factor was not taken into account. I am not persuaded.

Therefore, the FTT had made no material error in dismissing the appeal.

A final note. This was a judgment on the papers, but – remember – the Information Commissioner will always be a party to FOIA cases, because it is his decision that is at issue. In this instance, the Commissioner chose not to participate. Paragraph 32 records that he was “directed” to make a response to the appeal, but did not. If this correctly records a failure by the Commissioner to comply with a direction of the court, it is surprising there’s no note of disapproval from the judge.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, Upper Tribunal

Tagged as , ,

July 12, 2024 · 7:05 am

Unreasonably accessible – ICO and misapplication of s21?

I’ll start with a simple proposition: if a dataset is made publicly available online by a public authority, but some information on it is withheld – by a deliberate decision – from publication, then the total dataset is not reasonably accessible to someone making an FOI request for information from it.

I doubt that any FOI practitioners or lawyers would disagree.

Well, sit back and let me tell you a story.

In November 2023 the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) refused to disclose information in response to a Freedom of Information request, on the grounds that the exemption at section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applied: the information was “reasonably accessible to the applicant” without his needing to make a FOIA request.

The request was, in essence, for “a list…of the names of all the UK parish councils that have received 20 or more ICO Decision Notices (for FOIA cases only) since 1st January 2014”. The refusal by the ICO was on the basis that

the search function on the decision notice section of the ICO website returned 415 decision notices falling within the scope of the complainant’s request…[therefore] it is possible to place the names of the parish councils into an Excel sheet and then establish quickly how many decision notices relate to each individual parish council.

The ICO noted that, when it comes to the application of section 21

It is reasonable for a public authority to assume that information is reasonably accessible to the applicant as a member of the general public until it becomes aware of any particular circumstances or evidence to the contrary [emphasis added]

On appeal to the Information Tribunal, the ICO maintained reliance on the exemption, saying that all the applicant needed to do was to go to the ICO website and “look at each entry and count-up [sic] the numbers of [Decision Notices] against each parish council”. The Tribunal agreed: the ICO had provided the requester

with a link to the correct page of the ICO website, and instructing him how to use the search function. These instructions have enabled him to identify from the tens of thousands of published decision notices those 415-420 notices which have been issued to parish councils over the past decade or so

All straightforward, if one’s analysis is predicated on an assumption that the ICO’s public Decision Notice database is a complete record of all decision notices.

But it isn’t.

I made an FOI request of my own to the ICO; for how many Decision Notices do not appear on the database. And the answer is 45. A number of possible reasons are given (such as that sensitive information was involved, or that there was agreement by the parties not to publish). But the point is stark: the Decision Notice database is not a complete record of all Decision Notices issued. And I do not see how it is possible for the ICO to rely on section 21 FOIA in circumstances like those in this case. It is plainly the case that the ICO knew (or was likely reckless in not knowing) that there were “particular circumstances or evidence” which showed that the information could not have been reasonably accessible to the applicant.

Of course, it is quite likely (perhaps inevitable) that the 45 unpublished Decision Notices would make no difference at all to a calculation of how many UK parish councils have received 20 or more Decision Notices since 1st January 2014. But that really isn’t the point. The ICO could have come clean – could have done the search itself and added in the 45 unpublished notices. It knew they existed, but for some reason thought it didn’t matter.

The ICO is the regulator of FOIA, as well as being a public authority itself under FOIA. It has to get these things right. Otherwise, why should any other public authority feel the need to comply?

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

4 Comments

Filed under access to information, datasets, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, section 21

Tagged as , ,

November 17, 2023 · 6:35 am

EIR you sure you got that right?

Someone said they’d read this post if I wrote it. That’s miles more encouragement than I normally need, so here goes.

The other day, Tim Turner’s FOIDaily account pointed out how, after twenty-odd years, some public authorities still fail to identify when a request for information should be dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), rather than the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). An example was given of Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) identifying where a public authority had got this wrong.

As any fule kno, the two laws operate in parallel to create a regime for access to information held by public authorities, and it’s Regime 101 for a public authority to be able to know, and identify, when each applies. But, in short, if requested information is on, for instance, “measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect…the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape…” then the EIR, and not FOIA, apply.

I pointed out in the comments to the FOIDaily post that I’d seen a case where everyone, from the requester, to the public authority, to the ICO, to the First-tier Tribunal, had failed to deal with a case under the correct scheme.

This was it.

The case was about a request to a district council for information about whether a councillor had (in a private capacity) been required to pay any money to the council in relation to a fly-tipping incident or incidents. The request itself even referred to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was a very big hint that environmental information might be at issue.

What appears to have happened is that everyone jumped to the issue of whether disclosure of the requested information would contravene the councillor’s data protection rights. As most similar discussions take place in relation to the provisions of section 40 FOIA, the public authority, the ICO and the Tribunal (and presumably even the requester) all appear to have gravitated towards FOIA, without asking the correct first question: what is the applicable law? The answer to which was, clearly, EIR.

Regulation 13 of the EIR deals with personal data, and is cast in very similar terms to section 40 FOIA. It is, then, strongly arguable that, given that similarity, both the ICO and the Tribunal would have arrived at the same decision whichever regime applied. But Parliament has chosen to have two separate laws, and this is because they have a different genesis (EIR emanate from EU law which in turn emanates from international treaty obligations). Additionally, where all things are otherwise equal, the EIR contain an express presumption in favour of disclosure (something that is not the case in relation to personal data under the FOIA regime – see Lord Hope’s opinion in Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner).

As Tim implies in his post, the EIR have always been seen as somehow inferior, or subservient, to FOIA. No doubt this is because they are in the form of secondary legislation, rather than statute. This is more an accident of history, rather than of constitutional significance, and is never going to be relevant in most practice. But if the ICO and the courts continue to miss their relevance, it shouldn’t be that surprising that some public authorities will also do so.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal

Tagged as , , ,