Mark Roberts v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 405 (GRC)
Frank Boland v The Information Commissioner
19 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 42 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Environment Agency for information and they refused some of it, citing security concerns. The Information Commissioner agreed. The person appealed, but before the court could decide, the Agency gave them the information. The court then said it couldn't decide the appeal because the original problem was solved.
Key Facts
- •Frank Boland (Appellant) appealed a Decision Notice by the Information Commissioner (Commissioner) regarding the Environment Agency's refusal to fully disclose information requested under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).
- •The request concerned information about the Mill Leese Flood Storage Area.
- •The Environment Agency withheld some information citing national security/public safety (regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIRs).
- •The Commissioner upheld the Environment Agency's decision.
- •Before the hearing, the Environment Agency disclosed the requested information (except for uncontested personal data redactions).
- •The Appellant still pursued the appeal, focusing on the Commissioner's conduct and handling of the complaint.
- •The appeal was heard on the papers, with the parties' consent.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the lawfulness of the Decision Notice under section 58 of the FOIA (as applied by regulation 18 of the EIRs).
FOIA section 58, Regulation 18 of the EIRs
The Tribunal can only review whether the Decision Notice was in accordance with the law or whether the Commissioner's exercise of discretion was flawed.
FOIA section 58(1)
The EIRs' enforcement and appeals provisions mirror those of the FOIA.
Regulation 18 of the EIRs
Regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIRs allows withholding of information related to national security or public safety.
Regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIRs
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to address the Appellant's concerns about the Commissioner's conduct, as the requested information had been disclosed. The Tribunal's remit was limited to the lawfulness of the Decision Notice, which became moot upon disclosure.