Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
John Mitchell v Information Commissioner
12 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 295 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone requested cancer data and was unhappy with how their request was handled. They made another request for info about the mishandling. The government provided some info, but not names to protect privacy. A court said the government did enough and the person was making things up.
Key Facts
- •John Mitchell (Appellant) made a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to the National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) for cancer statistics for Plymouth.
- •The request was mishandled, being transferred between various email addresses and organizations.
- •Mitchell subsequently requested information on how his initial request was handled, leading to a further FOIA request.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the response to Mitchell's second FOIA request.
- •Mitchell appealed the Commissioner's decision to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) grants access to information held by public authorities.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Definition of 'public authority' under FOIA includes government departments and NHS bodies (Schedule 1).
FOIA, Schedule 1
Data Protection principles must be considered when disclosing information under FOIA.
Data Protection Act 2018 (implicitly referenced)
The release of names of individuals under FOIA is not automatic and requires consideration of public interest and data protection.
Information Commissioner's guidance (referenced)
FOIA provides access to information, not necessarily to documents in their original form. Redactions are permissible to protect personal data.
Implied by the Tribunal's decision
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found Mitchell's appeal to be without merit. The information requested regarding procedural changes was provided; releasing the names of individuals involved was unnecessary and breached their data protection rights. The Tribunal considered Mitchell's requests were driven by a misinterpretation of data and a groundless conspiracy theory.