Simon McGee v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 877 (GRC)
Maya Forstater v The Information Commissioner & Ors
14 December 2023
[2023] UKUT 303 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone asked for information about judge training. The group that ran the training wasn't listed in the law as needing to give out information, even though a similar group used to be. The court said the law is clear, and the training group didn't have to share the information.
Key Facts
- •Ms Forstater requested information from HMCTS (later the Judicial College) about 'Trans awareness' training for judges.
- •HMCTS/Judicial College responded that they did not hold the information and that the judiciary are not public authorities under FOIA.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the Judicial College is not a public authority under FOIA, but the MoJ (which is a public authority) held some requested information.
- •Ms Forstater appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), arguing that the Judicial College is the successor to the Judicial Studies Board, which was listed in Schedule 1 of FOIA.
Legal Principles
A body is a public authority under FOIA if it's listed in Schedule 1 or designated under section 5.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), sections 3 and 5
Statutes are generally interpreted literally; courts should not invent ambiguities or read in words that are not there.
Inco Europe Ltd. and Others v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
The burden of proof in FOIA appeals generally rests on the appellant to show the Information Commissioner's decision was wrong.
Khan v Custom and Excise Commissioners [2006] EWCA Civ 89; ICO v Home Office [2011] UKUT 17 (AAC)
In FOIA appeals, tribunals conduct a full merits review and should decide facts for themselves, not strictly apply burdens of proof.
Doorstep Dispensaree (cited in the decision)
The purpose of listing bodies in Schedule 1 of FOIA is to provide clarity and minimize disputes about whether a body is a public authority.
Sugar v BBC [2009] UKHL 9
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Ms Forstater's appeal.
The Judicial College was not listed in Schedule 1 of FOIA and the evidence supported the FTT's finding that it was a new body distinct from the Judicial Studies Board, despite functional similarities. The FTT correctly applied the law and did not err in its factual findings or burden of proof assessment.