Henry Dyer v The Information Commissioner & Ors
[2024] UKFTT 1042 (GRC)
Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner
14 December 2023
[2023] UKFTT 1025 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for information about whether Priti Patel broke government rules. The government tried to hide it, saying it would stop people giving honest advice. The judge said the public has a right to know, especially since a top official quit saying she was bullying. So, the information will be released.
Key Facts
- •Priti Patel accepted a role with Viasat before seeking advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), potentially breaching the Ministerial Code.
- •A FOI request was made regarding this and other alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code by Ms. Patel.
- •The Cabinet Office withheld information citing exemptions under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- •The Information Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the public interest favoured transparency despite the risk to frank advice.
- •The Cabinet Office appealed the Commissioner's decision.
Legal Principles
Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows for exemption if disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Ministerial Code is not a source of legal rights or duties; the Prime Minister is the sole arbiter of breaches.
Ministerial Code, Cabinet Office evidence
The public interest in disclosure must be weighed against the potential harm of inhibiting frank advice and deliberation. The timing of the public interest assessment is at the date of the public authority’s decision.
Evans, Montague, Information Commissioner's decision
While the Prime Minister is the sole judge of Ministerial Code breaches, the public can examine the facts and form its own opinion.
R (FDA) v Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service [2021] EWHC 3279 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner correctly applied the public interest test, considering the exceptional circumstances (Sir Philip Rutnam's resignation) and the lack of transparency surrounding Ms. Patel's actions. While acknowledging the importance of protecting frank advice, the Tribunal held the public interest in accountability outweighed the potential chilling effect.