Fiona Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 391 (GRC)
Fiona Thompson v The Information Commissioner
14 February 2023
[2024] UKFTT 131 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for messages from a government phone used by Lord Morse. The government said they didn't have them, but they actually did have one email. A judge looked at everything and said the government only had to give up that one email because they couldn't prove the others were from the phone.
Key Facts
- •Fiona Thompson (Appellant) requested incoming and outgoing messages from a HM Treasury smartphone issued to Lord Amyas Morse for his work on the Independent Loan Charge Review (LCR).
- •HM Treasury (Second Respondent) initially claimed the information was not held, later admitting errors in their response.
- •The Information Commissioner (First Respondent) initially upheld HM Treasury's claim but criticized their handling of the request.
- •Subsequent investigation revealed that Lord Morse did use the iPhone, but much of the requested data was deleted according to data retention policies.
- •The Tribunal heard evidence from HM Treasury officials, and the Appellant's proxy.
- •A closed session was held to examine emails found in Lord Morse's account.
Legal Principles
General right of access to information held by public authorities.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Public authority must carry out reasonable searches to identify all relevant information.
Bromley v IC (EA/2006/072)
In disputes, the balance of probabilities standard applies.
Information held by a third party on behalf of a public authority is considered held by the authority.
FOIA Section 3(2)(b)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in relation to one email containing a “sent from my iPhone” signature.
The email was clearly sent from the requested iPhone and had been disclosed.
Appeal dismissed for the remaining emails and other messages.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found that the remaining emails were not sent from the iPhone and other messages were not held.
No further steps required of the Second Respondent.
All available avenues for information retrieval had been explored.