Key Facts
- •Independent Digital News and Media Limited appealed the Information Commissioner's decision regarding HM Treasury's withholding of information related to Rishi Sunak's US Green Card.
- •The appeal focused on sections 40(2) (personal data) and 27 (international relations) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The requested information included correspondence between HM Treasury and US officials about Sunak's Green Card.
- •The Tribunal considered the balance between public interest in disclosure and the data subjects' rights to privacy and the potential harm to international relations.
Legal Principles
Section 40(2) FOIA: Information constitutes personal data exempt from disclosure if its disclosure would contravene data protection principles, or if the data subject's rights and freedoms override the legitimate interests in disclosure.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK GDPR: Defines personal data and outlines data protection principles, including lawful, fair, and transparent processing. Article 6(1)(f) allows processing for legitimate interests unless overridden by data subject's rights.
Data Protection Act 2018, UK GDPR
Section 27 FOIA: Information is exempt if disclosure would prejudice UK relations with another state. A public interest balancing test applies.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Public Interest Balancing Test: Weighs the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining the exemption under Section 27.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reasonable Necessity: Disclosure must be the least restrictive means of achieving the legitimate aim; it must be more than desirable but less than indispensable.
Case Law (implied from discussion)
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: A relevant factor in determining whether disclosure of personal data is justified, particularly concerning 'junior' officials.
Case Law (Durant v FSA, Edem v Information Commissioner)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal found that HM Treasury was entitled to withhold some personal data under section 40(2) (e.g., telephone numbers, email addresses, names of some junior officials), but not others (e.g., names and job titles of senior officials involved, most of Rishi Sunak's personal data). Regarding section 27, the Tribunal found that the exemption applied to some information but not others, after conducting a public interest balancing test.