Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Ian Driver v The Information Commissioner
28 February 2023
[2023] UKFTT 219 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A journalist wanted information about a councillor possibly involved in illegal dumping. The council refused to say if they had the info, protecting the councillor's privacy. A court agreed with the council, saying releasing the information would break privacy laws, even though it was about a public official.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision refusing to confirm or deny whether Thanet District Council held information requested by Ian Driver about a councillor (Councillor X) potentially involved in fly-tipping.
- •Request sought various documents and communications related to a fly-tipping investigation involving Councillor X.
- •The information, if held, constitutes personal data and criminal offence data under the Data Protection Act 2018.
- •The appellant argued that disclosure is in the public interest due to Councillor X's public position and the potential for misconduct.
- •The Commissioner upheld the Council's refusal to confirm or deny, relying on section 40(5B) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- •The appellant argued that various conditions in Schedule 1, Part 2 of the DPA 2018 were met, allowing for processing without consent.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Section 40(5B)
FOIA
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), Schedule 1, Parts 2 & 3
DPA 2018
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 5(1), Article 6(1)(f), Article 10
GDPR
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10
ECHR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
None of the conditions in Schedule 1, Part 2 of the DPA 2018 were met to justify confirming or denying whether the Council held the requested information. The Tribunal found that confirming or denying would breach data protection principles, and section 40(5B) FOIA therefore applies.