Rights & Security International v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 296 (GRC)
Edward Williams v The Information Commissioner & Anor
26 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 344 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for info about a government leak investigation. The government said no, citing national security. A judge agreed, saying releasing the info would make future investigations harder because people wouldn't cooperate if they feared their statements being leaked.
Key Facts
- •An unauthorised disclosure of information related to Huawei's involvement in the UK's 5G network occurred after a National Security Council (NSC) meeting.
- •Former Defence Secretary Sir Gavin Williamson was implicated and subsequently left the government.
- •Mr. Williams requested information from the Cabinet Office regarding the investigation into Sir Gavin Williamson's resignation.
- •The Cabinet Office withheld information citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), specifically sections 31(1)(g), 31(2)(b), 41(1), and 24(1).
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Cabinet Office's decision.
- •Mr. Williams appealed the Commissioner's decision to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
Section 31 FOIA exemption for law enforcement purposes applies broadly, extending beyond actual law enforcement to activities in aid of or related to the enforcement of various legal regimes.
WS v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 181 (AAC)
The test for section 31(1)(g) FOIA is whether disclosure would prejudice a public authority's function of ascertaining responsibility for improper conduct. 'Improper' conduct includes unethical behaviour, such as unauthorised disclosure of national security information.
DVLA v Information Commissioner & Williams [2020] UKUT 334 (AAC), ICO Guidance on section 31 FOIA
When assessing prejudice under section 31, the claimed prejudice must be real and significant, causally linked to disclosure, and the likelihood of prejudice must be considered; disclosure is to the world, not subject to conditions.
Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner and FZ [2014] UKUT 0334 (AAC)
In balancing public interest, the Tribunal considers the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure; the date of refusal is key, and there is no presumption of disclosure. In national security cases, weight is given to government views due to their expertise, using a precautionary approach.
Savic v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 535 (AAC); All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (APPGER) v The Information Commissioner and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2015] UKUT 377 (AAC)
Explanatory notes cannot alter the meaning of a statute.
This case
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Cabinet Office's investigation into the leak constituted ascertaining responsibility for improper conduct under section 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) FOIA. Disclosure would likely prejudice future investigations by undermining trust and revealing investigative methods. The public interest in maintaining the exemption heavily outweighs the public interest in disclosure, particularly given the national security implications.