Andrew Ronnan v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 755 (GRC)
Andrew Challinor v The Information Commissioner & Anor
25 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 536 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted to know if the SFO was investigating a collapsed gambling company. The SFO said no, citing protections for investigations. A judge agreed, saying the need to protect investigations outweighed the public's right to know in this case.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against an Information Commissioner's Decision Notice concerning a Freedom of Information request to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) regarding BetIndex Limited.
- •Request sought information on SFO's involvement in investigating BetIndex, including whether it was considered a Ponzi scheme.
- •SFO claimed exemptions under sections 30(1)(b), 30(3), 31(1), and 31(3) of the FOIA 2000.
- •The Tribunal considered the public interest balancing test (PIBT).
- •Closed proceedings involved examination of additional evidence related to the exemptions and the PIBT.
- •The collapse of BetIndex caused significant financial and social harm to many individuals.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) provides a right to information held by public authorities, subject to exemptions.
FOIA 2000, sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b)
Exemptions can be absolute or qualified (subject to PIBT), where the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
FOIA 2000, section 2(2)(a), 2(2)(b)
Section 30(1)(b) FOIA exempts information relating to investigations that may lead to criminal proceedings.
FOIA 2000, section 30(1)(b)
Section 30(3) FOIA prevents the duty to confirm or deny if information is exempt under subsection (1) or (2).
FOIA 2000, section 30(3)
Section 31(1) FOIA exempts information whose disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or administration of justice.
FOIA 2000, section 31(1)
Section 31(3) FOIA prevents the duty to confirm or deny if compliance with section 1(1)(a) would prejudice matters in subsection (1).
FOIA 2000, section 31(3)
The Tribunal has a full merits appellate jurisdiction to review findings of fact and exercises of discretion by the Information Commissioner.
FOIA 2000, section 58; IC v Malnick and ACOBA [2018] UKUT 72
The public interest balancing test is determined at the date of the response to the information request.
Montague v ICO and Department for Business and Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the balance of public interest favored maintaining the exemptions claimed by the SFO and upholding the NCND response. While acknowledging strong arguments for disclosure, the Tribunal weighed the existing accountability mechanisms for the SFO and the potential harm to ongoing investigations and individuals' rights against the public interest in disclosure.