Paul Rolleston v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 824 (GRC)
Jagdish Chand v The Information Commissioner & Anor
31 August 2023
[2023] UKFTT 692 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the police for information about two old crime cases. The police said no, because releasing that information could harm victims and witnesses, and scare people from reporting crimes in the future. A judge agreed with the police.
Key Facts
- •Jagdish Chand (appellant) requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to two criminal convictions reported in the media.
- •The CPS refused the request citing section 30(1)(c) and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld the CPS's refusal.
- •Chand appealed the IC's decision to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The appeal concerned the public interest balance in disclosing information held for the purposes of criminal proceedings.
Legal Principles
Information held for the purposes of criminal proceedings is exempt under section 30(1)(c) FOIA.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 30(1)(c) is a qualified exemption subject to a public interest test.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 & Commissioner’s Guidance
Disclosure of personal data of a third party is only allowed if compatible with data protection principles (Article 5 GDPR).
Freedom of Information Act 2000 & General Data Protection Regulation
Information subject to legal professional privilege is exempt under section 42 FOIA.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of criminal investigations outweighs general interest in transparency.
Case law: Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland v IC and John Collins EA/2010/0109; Wynn v IC and Serious Fraud Office (EA/2011/0185)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 30(1)(c) FOIA, and potentially other exemptions (sections 38, 40(2), and 42), significantly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The appellant's allegations of wrongdoing were unsubstantiated.