Key Facts
- •James Haslam appealed against the Information Commissioner's decision that Ofsted was entitled to withhold information under section 33(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Haslam requested evidence forms and notes from an Ofsted inspection of Denton Community College.
- •Ofsted refused disclosure citing section 33(2) FOIA (audit functions).
- •The Information Commissioner upheld Ofsted's refusal.
- •Haslam's appeal was based on a suspicion of wrongdoing due to a change in the inspection team.
- •The appeal was heard on the papers due to the appellant's non-attendance.
Legal Principles
Section 33(2) FOIA allows exemption from disclosure if it would prejudice the exercise of a public authority's audit functions.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority's 'functions' include any power or duty exercisable for a specified purpose.
Stevenson v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 181 (AAC)
The tribunal's role is to determine if the Commissioner's decision is in accordance with the law or if discretion was properly exercised.
Section 58 FOIA
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the exemption in section 33(2) FOIA applied. The public interest in Ofsted effectively carrying out its audit functions outweighed the public interest in disclosure before the final report was published. Haslam's suspicions of wrongdoing were deemed speculative and lacked evidence.