Diane Roselyn Thomas v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 664 (GRC)
Diane Jones v Information Commissioner
4 December 2023
[2023] UKFTT 815 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked a council for documents about their application to a diversity program. The council said they didn't keep copies. A judge agreed with the council because the request was very specific and the council's explanation was believable. The request didn't ask for drafts or other related documents, only the final application.
Key Facts
- •Diane Jones appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner regarding a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to Newcastle Upon Tyne Council.
- •The request sought information about the Council's applications to Stonewall's Diversity Champions Programme and Workplace Equality Index in 2019 and 2020.
- •The Council stated it did not retain copies of the applications, which were submitted through Stonewall's online portal.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Council's response, finding that the Council did not hold the requested information.
- •The Appellant argued that the Council must have retained preparatory materials, drafts, and internal communications related to the applications.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA): General right of access to information held by public authorities.
FOIA, section 1
FOIA: Information is held by a public authority if it is held by the authority or by another person on behalf of the authority.
FOIA, section 3(2)
FOIA: Determination of appeals – the Tribunal considers whether the notice is in accordance with the law and may review findings of fact.
FOIA, section 58
Standard of proof in FOIA cases is the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal considers the quality of the public authority’s analysis, the scope of the search, and its rigour and efficiency.
Bromley v the Information Commissioner and the Environment Agency (EA/2006/0072)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Council's search for the requested information was reasonable and appropriate given the narrow scope of the request. The Tribunal also found that the Council's explanation for not retaining copies of the applications was plausible, and that the Council did not hold the requested information at the time of the request.