Keith Vernon Gell v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 329 (GRC)
Albert Tarcy v The Information Commissioner & Anor
29 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 778 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked TfL for information about how they deal with graffiti. TfL said no, it would help criminals. A judge agreed, saying protecting the public from more graffiti is more important than releasing the information.
Key Facts
- •Albert Tarcy appealed a decision notice by the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information request to Transport for London (TfL).
- •The request sought information on TfL's policies and spending related to graffiti removal and cost recovery from offenders.
- •TfL claimed exemptions under sections 31, 38, and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner upheld TfL's exemptions under section 31 FOIA.
- •The appeal focused on whether the Commissioner correctly applied section 31 FOIA and the public interest test.
Legal Principles
Section 1(1) of FOIA provides a general right of access to information from public authorities, subject to exemptions in Part II.
FOIA
Section 31 FOIA (law enforcement exemption): Information is exempt if disclosure would prejudice matters such as crime prevention, detection, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
FOIA
Section 31(3) FOIA: The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if compliance would prejudice matters mentioned in subsection (1).
FOIA
Section 2(2)(b) FOIA: Section 31 is a qualified exemption, requiring a public interest test.
FOIA
Three-stage analysis for prejudice-based exemptions (Hogan v ICO and Oxford City Council): (1) Is there a prejudice identified? (2) Is there a causal link between disclosure and the prejudice? (3) Is the prejudice likely?
Hogan v ICO and Oxford City Council [2011] 1 Info LR 588
Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary v. Information Commissioner: Confirming or denying the existence of information can prejudice crime prevention if it reveals the use of investigative techniques.
EA/2011/0114
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner correctly applied section 31 FOIA. Disclosure of the requested information would likely prejudice crime prevention by providing information useful to potential graffiti offenders. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.