Nigel Rawlins v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 916 (GRC)
Christian Herman v The Information Commissioner & Anor
27 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 259 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man asked for police officers' files because he believed they acted wrongly in his case. The court said no, because releasing those private files would be unfair to the police officers, even though there might be some public interest in knowing what happened.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Herman appealed a decision notice by the Information Commissioner upholding Kent Police's refusal to provide his requested information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The request concerned service and disciplinary records of three Kent Police officers involved in Mr. Herman's 2014 criminal trial.
- •Kent Police relied on FOIA sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) and the Data Protection Act 1998 exemptions, arguing the information was personal data and disclosure would contravene data protection principles.
- •The appeal was heard in 2024, raising questions about the applicability of the law as it stood in 2016/2017 versus 2024. The Tribunal decided to apply the 1998 Act.
- •Mr. Herman claimed a public interest in disclosure due to allegations of police misconduct affecting his trial, including potential perjury and perverting the course of justice.
- •The Tribunal reviewed the closed bundle containing the officers' records and considered Mr. Herman's arguments concerning public interest and potential breaches of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
- •The Tribunal held a closed hearing to examine the sensitive personal data contained in the service and disciplinary records.
Legal Principles
FOIA's right to access information is subject to exemptions, including those related to personal data under section 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) which can be absolute exemptions.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Data Protection Act 1998 principles require fair and lawful processing of personal data, only permissible if reasonably necessary for legitimate interests, without unwarranted prejudice to the data subject's rights.
Data Protection Act 1998
The 'necessary' test under the DPA requires a pressing social need, proportionality, and a fair balance between interests; disclosure should be the 'least restrictive' means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Case law (South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55; Corporate officer of the House of Commons -v Information Commissioner [2008]EWHC 1084; Goldsmith International Business School -v- The Information Commissioner and the Home Office [2014] UKUT 0563 (ACC))
A legitimate interest must be broader than just the requester's private interest; public interest must be considered.
Case law (Rodriquez Noza-v- the Information Commissioner & Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015]UKUT 0499 (ACC))
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Kent Police was entitled to rely on the exemptions in FOIA sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) because disclosure would contravene data protection principles. While acknowledging some public interest in transparency and accountability within the police, the Tribunal determined disclosure was not reasonably necessary, and would be unwarranted given the prejudice to the officers' rights and freedoms.