Frank Boland v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 42 (GRC)
Ivan Murray-Smith & Ors v The Information Commissioner & Anor
28 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 1064 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
People asked TfL for details about traffic cameras. TfL refused, citing safety concerns due to vandalism. A court agreed with TfL, saying releasing the info could help criminals target cameras and put people at risk. The court also said some of the requests were unreasonable.
Key Facts
- •Four appellants challenged five decisions by the Information Commissioner regarding Transport for London's (TfL) refusal to disclose information about the make and model of CCTV and parking enforcement cameras.
- •Appellants argued that the Information Commissioner incorrectly applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) instead of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •TfL argued that disclosing this information would compromise public safety and national security due to a campaign of vandalism against ULEZ cameras.
- •The appeals involved numerous requests for information, some made before and after TfL's internal review clarifying its position on disclosure.
- •The Tribunal considered the 'mosaic effect', where seemingly innocuous individual pieces of information could be combined to reveal sensitive information.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'environmental information' under the EIR.
Regulation 2(1) EIR
Exceptions to disclosure under the EIR (public safety, course of justice, protection of the environment).
Regulation 12 EIR
Public interest test in balancing disclosure and exemption under the EIR.
Regulation 12(1) EIR
Relationship between FOIA and EIR; Section 39 FOIA exemption.
Section 39 FOIA
'Manifestly unreasonable' requests under the EIR.
Regulation 12(4)(b) EIR
'Mosaic effect' – aggregation of seemingly harmless information to reveal sensitive data.
Various case law references implied
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the EIR applied, exceptions for public safety and the course of justice were engaged, and the public interest favored withholding the information. Some requests were deemed manifestly unreasonable.