Someone wanted the name of a witness from a UFO file. The government said no because releasing the name could upset the witness. The court agreed that protecting the witness's privacy was more important than releasing the information.
Key Facts
- •Matthew Robert Illsley appealed the Information Commissioner's decision to uphold the National Archives' (TNA) refusal to disclose the name of a witness in a document relating to the 1990 Calvine UFO incident.
- •The TNA withheld the information under section 40(2) FOIA, claiming it was personal data.
- •The appeal was decided on the papers without a hearing.
- •The Appellant argued that the public interest in transparency and accountability regarding the MoD and alleged witness intimidation outweighed the witness's privacy rights.
- •The Commissioner argued that disclosure under FOIA is disclosure to the world and that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR did not apply.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
FOIA
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)
DPA
UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)
UK GDPR
Balancing test under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The Tribunal found that while there were legitimate public interests in disclosure, these were overridden by the witness's privacy rights. Disclosure would likely cause distress and was not lawful under the UK GDPR. Article 6(1)(e) GDPR was also deemed inapplicable.