Ed Ryland v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 396 (GRC)
Ed Ryland v The Information Commissioner
10 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 603 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked Channel 4 for financial information about its relationship with Sainsbury's. Channel 4 said no, citing a law that protects information needed for broadcasting. The government agreed, and a court upheld that decision. Even though the request was for summarized information, the court found the individual pieces of information were already protected.
Key Facts
- •Ed Ryland requested information from Channel 4 about its financial dealings with Sainsbury's under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Channel 4 claimed the information was exempt under FOIA as it was held for the purposes of journalism, art, or literature.
- •The Information Commissioner (ICO) upheld Channel 4's claim.
- •Ryland appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
Information held for the purposes of journalism, art, or literature is exempt from FOIA (the 'derogation').
Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and another (No. 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 715; Sugar (Deceased) and another v British Broadcasting Corporation (No. 2) [2012] UKSC 4; Sugar v BBC [2009] UKHL 9
To establish whether information is held for a derogated purpose, there must be a sufficiently direct link between the purpose for which the information is held and the fulfilment of one of the derogated purposes.
Sugar v Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0032)
A public authority's obligation under s.16 FOIA to provide reasonable advice and assistance.
FOIA s.16
Section 43(2) FOIA allows for exemption if publication would prejudice commercial interests, but this was not considered by the Tribunal due to procedural reasons.
FOIA s.43(2)
The Tribunal exercises a full merits appellate jurisdiction and stands in the shoes of the ICO.
Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal was refused.
The Tribunal found that the information requested, even in aggregated form, was ultimately comprised of building blocks of information held for purposes directly linked to Channel 4's journalistic output, thus falling under the derogation.
The ICO's Decision Notice was upheld.
While acknowledging suboptimal drafting in the DN, the Tribunal found the ICO's conclusion was in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also found that Channel 4's overall response to the information request was sufficient and did not breach s.16 FOIA.