Dr Sam Raphael v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 186 (GRC)
Dr Emma L Briant v The Information Commissioner & Anor
31 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 708 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for a report about a political campaign in Ukraine. The MOD said no, because releasing information could damage the UK's relationships with other countries. A court agreed with the MOD, even though there was public interest in seeing the report, because the potential damage to international relations was considered greater.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Briant requested information from the MOD about a report on a communication campaign in Ukraine by SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent company).
- •The MOD refused the request under sections 26(3) and 27(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), claiming it would prejudice national defense and international relations.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the MOD's decision.
- •Dr. Briant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The Tribunal heard evidence from both sides, including closed sessions due to national security concerns.
- •Publicly available information showed some evidence of SCL's work in Ukraine, but not the specifics of the report requested.
Legal Principles
FOIA's duty to confirm or deny information can be disapplied if exemptions in Part II outweigh public interest in disclosure (Sections 1(1), 2).
FOIA, Sections 1(1), 2
Exemptions under sections 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) consider whether confirming or denying information possession would prejudice the interests mentioned. A 'neither confirm nor deny' (NCND) response can protect against wider prejudices (Savic v Information Commissioner).
FOIA, Sections 26, 27; Savic v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 535 (AAC)
On appeal, the Tribunal has a full merits jurisdiction to review factual findings and apply FOIA (Information Commissioner v Malnick).
Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Tribunals should accord weight to government expertise on matters of national security and international relations (Savic).
Savic v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 535 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that confirming or denying the MOD's possession of the requested information would likely prejudice UK relations with Ukraine and other states, outweighing the public interest in disclosure. This was based on evidence presented, both open and closed, and considered the sensitivity surrounding SCL's activities in Ukraine and the risk of harming international cooperation.