Ceri Gibbons v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 35 (GRC)
Dr Sam Raphael v Information Commissioner & Anor
7 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 186 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the government for numbers about when ministers were consulted before sharing intelligence that might lead to torture. The government refused, saying it was a security risk. The court agreed, saying releasing the numbers could damage relationships with other countries and harm national security. The court also decided that the information was too closely linked to sensitive intelligence to be released.
Key Facts
- •Dr Sam Raphael appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner upholding the Ministry of Defence's (MOD) refusal to disclose information regarding ministerial consultations on intelligence sharing where there was a serious risk of torture.
- •The request sought aggregate figures on ministerial consultations and approvals for intelligence sharing in such circumstances, broken down by year.
- •The MOD relied on exemptions under sections 23(1), 24(1), 26(1)(b), and 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- •The Tribunal heard evidence in both open and closed sessions.
- •The Appellant argued that similar information had been previously disclosed and that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the potential harm.
Legal Principles
Section 23 FOIA affords the widest protection and aims to preserve operational secrecy of security bodies.
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Information Commissioner and Rosenbaum [2021] UKUT 5 (AAC)
Section 24 FOIA requires exemption if necessary for safeguarding national security; 'required' means 'reasonably necessary'.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office v Information Commissioner & Williams & Wickham-Jones & Lownie [2021] UKUT 248 (AAC)
Section 27 FOIA exempts information likely to prejudice UK relations with other states; requires demonstrating actual harm and causal relationship.
Campaign against the Arms Trade v Information Commissioner and others EA/2007/0040
In applying section 23, consideration must be given to whether information can be disaggregated to render it non-exempt.
Corderoy v Information Commissioner [2017] UKUT 495 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 23(1) or 24(1) FOIA, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under sections 24(1) and 27(1)(a) outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Disaggregation was deemed inappropriate.