E Williams v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKUT 312 (AAC)
Jared O'Mara v The Information Commissioner & Anor
19 April 2023
[2023] UKFTT 381 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A man asked the police for information. The police said he asked too many times before and refused. A judge said the police were wrong because the man had improved his behavior and the information was important, so the police have to reconsider his request.
Key Facts
- •Mr. O'Mara made a Freedom of Information request to South Yorkshire Police (SYP) on information relating to the Police and Crime Act 2017.
- •SYP refused the request, deeming it vexatious.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld SYP's decision.
- •Mr. O'Mara appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •Mr. O'Mara has autism, generalized anxiety disorder, and cerebral palsy.
- •SYP argued the request was vexatious due to Mr. O'Mara's history of numerous requests and communication style.
- •Mr. O'Mara argued his disabilities impacted his communication, and SYP's refusal was discriminatory.
Legal Principles
A request is vexatious if it causes disproportionate burden, has improper motive, lacks serious purpose or value, or causes harassment or distress.
Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); Dransfield v The Information Commissioner [2015] EWCA Civ 454
The Tribunal exercises full merits appellate jurisdiction and considers all relevant circumstances.
Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)
Public authorities are generally obliged to notify requesters of exemptions, except when the request is vexatious and prior notification has been given.
s.17 Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to address claims under the Equality Act 2010.
s.113 Equality Act 2010
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found that while Mr. O'Mara's previous requests raised concerns about burden, motive, and value, his subsequent behaviour demonstrated a positive change. The Tribunal determined that the current request was not vexatious and should be reconsidered without applying the s.14(1) exemption.