Alastair Logan v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 476 (GRC)
Jenna Corderoy v The Information Commissioner & Anor
6 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 105 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Home Office for information about the Sarah Everard vigil. The Home Office said no, citing various reasons for keeping information secret. A court reviewed the decision. Some information had to be released, but most of it remained secret because the court decided that the reasons for keeping it secret outweighed the public's right to know.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision concerning the Home Office's refusal to disclose information relating to the Sarah Everard vigil.
- •The Home Office relied on sections 21, 24, 31, 35, 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The request sought internal and external correspondence mentioning the vigil.
- •The appeal focused on sections 31, 35, 36, and 24 of the FOIA.
- •The Tribunal held a closed session to examine sensitive information.
Legal Principles
Public interest test under FOIA section 2(2)(b): Balancing public interest in maintaining exemption against public interest in disclosure.
FOIA section 2(2)(b), APPGER v Information Commissioner and Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2016] AACR 5
Section 24(1) FOIA: Information exempt if disclosure required to safeguard national security.
FOIA section 24(1)
Section 31 FOIA: Information exempt if disclosure would prejudice prevention and detection of crime. 'Would or would be likely to' requires more probable than not, or a real and significant risk of prejudice.
FOIA section 31
Section 35(1)(a) FOIA: Information relating to formulation or development of government policy is exempt. 'Relates to' has a broad meaning; a connection is sufficient. 'Liveness' of policy is a question of fact for the public interest balance, not exemption engagement.
FOIA section 35(1)(a), APPGER, UCAS v Information Commissioner and Lord Lucas [2015] AACR 25, Morland v Cabinet Office [2018] UKUT 67 (AAC), Department for Education and Skills v Information Commissioner and the Evening Standard (EA/2006/0006), Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 774 (Admin); [2010] QB 98
Section 36 FOIA: Information exempt if, in a qualified person's reasonable opinion, disclosure would inhibit free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views. Tribunal assesses reasonableness of opinion, giving it weight but not absolute deference. 'Chilling effect' arguments require caution and reasoned evidence.
FOIA section 36, Information Commissioner v Malnick [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC), Davies v IC and The Cabinet Office [2019] UKUT 185 (AAC), Department of Health v Information Commissioner and Lewis [2015] UKUT 0159 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal found the Home Office was not entitled to withhold page 115 of the bundle under section 31 or information replicated in the previously released MPS Summary. The Tribunal upheld the exemptions for other documents under sections 24, 31 (partially), 35, and 36, based on the public interest balance.