Paul Bentley v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 18 (GRC)
Keith Kennaugh v The Information Commissioner
13 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 128 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone repeatedly asked the police for crime numbers for reports they made about politicians. The police said it was annoying and refused. A judge agreed that the request was annoying (vexatious) and threw out the appeal.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision that West Yorkshire Police (WYP) was entitled to refuse a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as vexatious.
- •Appellant repeatedly requested crime reference numbers for alleged offences reported to WYP, relating to misconduct by prominent figures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •WYP refused the request citing unreasonable persistence, overlapping requests, and burden on resources.
- •Appellant alleged conspiracy between WYP and the Mayor's office to pervert the course of justice.
- •The Tribunal did not have access to all the Appellant's previous FOIA requests and WYP's responses during the hearing.
- •The Appellant provided false and misleading personal details in his crime reports.
Legal Principles
Section 14(1) of the FOIA allows a public authority to refuse a request if it is vexatious.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
A request is vexatious if it has no reasonable foundation; no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, or to the public or any section of the public.
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and Dransfield v Information Commission & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
The Tribunal has a full merits consideration of whether, on the facts and the law, the public authority’s response to the Request is in accordance with Part 1 of FOIA.
Information Commissioner v Malnick and ACOBA [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC); [2018] AACR 29
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the request vexatious, both in isolation and potentially in the context of previous requests (though lack of access to all previous correspondence prevented a definitive conclusion on the latter). The request lacked value or serious purpose given the circumstances, the Appellant’s unsubstantiated suspicion of conspiracy, and the lack of recorded crimes.