Key Facts
- •Keith Vernon Gell (Appellant) requested information from the City of London Police (COLP) regarding Action Fraud's criteria for categorizing fraud reports.
- •COLP initially refused the request, citing exemptions under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner upheld COLP's refusal.
- •The Appellant appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The Appellant's appeal also raised human rights arguments related to a separate civil dispute involving alleged fraud.
- •The FTT dismissed the appeal.
Legal Principles
Section 31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA: Information exempt if disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Hogan and Oxford City Council v the Information Commissioner approach to prejudice-based exemptions: Identify applicable interests, nature of prejudice (real, actual, or substantial causal link), and likelihood of prejudice.
Hogan and Oxford City Council v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0026 and 0030, 17 October 2006)
Public interest test under FOIA: Even if an exemption applies, the public interest in disclosure may outweigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
FOIA does not provide an exhaustive scheme for disclosure of information; other avenues for accessing information may exist.
Moss v the Information Commissioner and the Cabinet Office [2020] UKUT 242 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the public interest in preventing disclosure of Action Fraud's prioritization criteria outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Disclosure would likely prejudice crime prevention and detection. The appellant's human rights arguments were deemed outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this context.