Frank Boland v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 42 (GRC)
Mark Roberts v The Information Commissioner
22 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 405 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone wanted information about a reservoir to understand flood risk. The government withheld some details because revealing them could help someone sabotage the water supply. The court agreed that protecting the water supply is more important than releasing the information, even though there's usually a rule to make information public.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision that the Environment Agency could withhold information under regulation 12(5)(a) of the Environmental Regulations 2004 (EIR) (national security and public safety).
- •Withheld information: Redactions to Annex 2 of a report on the Thirlmere reservoir, relating to water releases for flood storage.
- •Appellant: Member of the Keswick Flood Action Group (KFAG), seeking information to understand flood risk management.
- •Respondent: The Information Commissioner.
- •Information withheld concerned specific operating conditions which could reveal potential vulnerabilities in the water infrastructure.
- •The Tribunal considered information already in the public domain and the potential for sabotage.
Legal Principles
The right to environmental information means disclosure should be the general rule; exceptions should be interpreted restrictively, weighing public interest in disclosure against refusal.
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Office for Communications v Information Commissioner Case C-71/10
EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test, with a presumption in favour of disclosure. Grounds for refusal should be interpreted restrictively.
Vesco v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Government Legal Department [2019] UKUT 247 (TCC)
Three-stage test under Regulation 12: 1. Adverse effect on national security/public safety? 2. Public interest in maintaining exception outweighs disclosure? 3. Presumption in favour of disclosure?
Regulation 12 of the EIR
Public interest test requires analysis of potential harm from disclosure, balancing interests in disclosure and withholding.
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638
Presumption in favour of disclosure serves as default position for equal balance and informs decisions under regulations.
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] Env LR 40
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that disclosure of the redacted information would adversely affect public safety by potentially enabling sabotage. The public interest in preventing this harm outweighed the public interest in disclosure, even considering the presumption in favour of disclosure.