Someone asked the police for more info about a misconduct hearing. The police said no, protecting the officer's privacy. A judge agreed some info should be released, balancing privacy with the public's right to know about police conduct.
Key Facts
- •Jon Austin requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) regarding the outcome of a misconduct hearing held in private.
- •The MPS initially refused the request under section 40(2) FOIA (personal information), but provided a DOI Notice of Outcome.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the MPS' refusal.
- •Austin appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
- •The hearing was held in private due to the legally qualified chair's (LQC) discretion under reg 31 of the 2012 Police (Conduct) Regulations.
- •A summary of the outcome was previously published on the MPS website for 28 days.
- •The dispute centered on whether the withheld information constituted 'criminal offence data' under the UK GDPR.
- •The Tribunal found the withheld information was not 'criminal offence data'.
- •The Tribunal considered the balance between the public interest in transparency and the officer's right to privacy.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
FOIA
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)
DPA
UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)
UK GDPR
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012
2012 Regs
Balancing legitimate interests against fundamental rights
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55
Outcomes
Appeal Allowed
The Tribunal found that the withheld information, while personal data, was not 'criminal offence data'. The public interest in transparency regarding police misconduct outweighed the officer's right to privacy, particularly given that some information was already in the public domain. A redacted version of the withheld information should be disclosed.