Scolt Head and District Common Rightsholders Association v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1037 (GRC)
Mark Watts v The Information Commissioner & Anor
26 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 647 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone requested information about a charity's investigation from the Charity Commission. The Commission refused, saying releasing it would scare other charities from cooperating. A judge agreed, saying protecting the Commission's ability to investigate is more important than releasing the information, even though that charity was under scrutiny.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Information Commissioner's decision notice (IC-230531-F9L1) upholding Charity Commission's reliance on section 31(1)(g) FOIA.
- •Appellant sought information from the Charity Commission concerning Transparency International UK.
- •Charity Commission refused disclosure citing sections 31(1)(g), 40(2), and 41 FOIA.
- •Commissioner found section 31(1)(g) engaged but also a breach of section 17 FOIA (no action required).
- •Appeal concerned whether public interest favored disclosure despite section 31(1)(g) being engaged.
- •The withheld information consisted of reports and correspondence relating to six compliance cases opened in relation to Transparency International UK, broadly categorized into proactive theme-based casework and information provided by the charity itself.
- •The Tribunal had access to both open and closed documents, including the withheld information, to make its decision.
Legal Principles
Section 31(1)(g) FOIA provides a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test for information that would prejudice a public authority's functions for purposes specified in subsection (2).
Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority's 'functions' under section 31(1)(g) are any power or duty exercisable for a specified purpose, whether conferred by statute, common law, or royal prerogative.
Stevenson v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 181 (AAC)
The exemption in section 31(1)(g) is prejudice-based, requiring a 'real and significant risk' of prejudice.
Case law interpretation
Tribunal conducts a full merits review and considers matters afresh, able to receive evidence not before the Commissioner and make different findings of fact.
FOIA s.58
A focused approach should be taken to the specific purposes listed in section 31(2) when assessing prejudice. Potential damage to a charity’s reputation does not impact on the exercise of the Charity Commission’s functions for those specified purposes.
DVLA v Information Commissioner [2021] 1 WLR and Williams v ICO [2023] UKUT 57 (AAC)
The Charity Commission’s functions include encouraging better charity administration and investigating misconduct or mismanagement.
Charities Act 2011, sections 14, 15
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that disclosure would likely prejudice the Charity Commission's functions under section 31(1)(g) FOIA because it would inhibit voluntary information disclosure and hinder intelligence gathering. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Similar Cases
Sean Burns v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 1021 (GRC)
Thomas Turner v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 1063 (GRC)
His Majesty’s Treasury v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 902 (GRC)
Professor Geoffrey Alderman v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2022] UKFTT 524 (GRC)