Richard and Jane Burton v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 624 (GRC)
Chris Ness v Information Commissioner & Anor
5 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 767 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone requested police data and a presentation from the Nicola Bulley inquest. The police refused, citing data protection and the fact it was court evidence. The court sided with the police, agreeing the data was private and protected, and its release wasn't in the public interest.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision concerning a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request.
- •Request for Fitbit data and PowerPoint presentation used in the Nicola Bulley inquest.
- •Constabulary refused the request under section 32(1)(a) FOIA (information held only by virtue of being in court documents).
- •Appellant argued the Constabulary's information was inaccurate and the data was available to police before the Coroner's request.
- •Tribunal considered sections 32(1)(a), 32(1)(c)(ii), 41 (information provided in confidence), and 38 FOIA.
Legal Principles
Section 32(1)(a) FOIA: Information held only by virtue of being in court documents is exempt.
FOIA 2000, section 32(1)(a)
Section 32(1)(c)(ii) FOIA: Documents created by court administrative staff are exempt.
FOIA 2000, section 32(1)(c)(ii)
Section 41 FOIA: Information obtained in confidence is exempt if disclosure would be a breach of confidence.
FOIA 2000, section 41
Peninsula Business Services v ICO: Purpose of information's acquisition is key for section 32(1)(a).
[2014] UKUT 284 (AAC)
Coco v A N Clark: Three elements needed to establish breach of confidence.
[1969] RPC 41
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the Constabulary was entitled to withhold the information under sections 32(1)(a) and 41 FOIA. The source data was held only because it was in a court document (PowerPoint) and its disclosure would breach confidence.