Anthony Mott v The Cabinet Office
[2024] UKFTT 709 (GRC)
Andrew Preston v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
26 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 1056 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone sued the police for not fully answering a request for information. The judge decided the police had tried their best, even if some information was slightly wrong or missing, and so didn't punish them.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Preston applied to certify an offence of contempt against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police for non-compliance with a substituted Tribunal decision in a Freedom of Information (FOI) case.
- •The original FOI request concerned information on FOI requests processed by West Yorkshire Police between June 1, 2014, and April 20, 2020.
- •The Tribunal's initial decision found that the Respondent had used the wrong start date for providing information, but the information provided was deemed accurate based on the system used.
- •The substituted decision ordered the Respondent to provide amended spreadsheets using the date received as the trigger.
- •The Applicant claimed non-compliance due to missing data (June 1, 2014 – October 7, 2014), missing records, and inaccurate information.
- •The Respondent argued compliance, citing two different systems for logging FOI requests and a misunderstanding of the Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's power to certify contempt is found in sections 61(3) and (4) of the FOIA 2000, applying where an act or omission would constitute contempt of court if the proceedings were before a court.
FOIA 2000, sections 61(3) and (4)
There is no power to compel a public authority to comply with a substituted decision notice; however, there is a power to punish for non-compliance.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron & The Information Commissioner's Office and Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council & The Information Commissioner's Office: [2023] UKUT 22 (AAC)
Contempt proceedings must be proportionate and for legitimate ends; the order breached must be clear and unambiguous; the respondent must have proper notice; and the breach must be clear.
Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799
The obligation is to provide information held, not necessarily correct information.
Case judgment
Outcomes
The application to certify an offence of contempt was dismissed.
The Respondent substantially complied with the substituted decision; any non-compliance was deemed de minimis and inadvertent. The Applicant failed to prove deliberate non-compliance or a serious breach.