Jon Austin v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 846 (GRC)
Maya Esslemont v The Information Commissioner
25 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 333 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Home Office for data. The Home Office said no, citing a plan to release the data later. A judge decided the Home Office hadn't actually planned to release it beforehand, so the request should have been granted. However, because the Home Office eventually released the data, no further action was needed.
Key Facts
- •Maya Esslemont (appellant) requested NRM reconsideration statistics from the Home Office (respondent).
- •The Home Office refused the request under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), claiming the information was intended for future publication.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Home Office's decision.
- •Esslemont appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The Home Office had previously released similar information to another requester.
- •The requested information was subsequently published by the Home Office.
Legal Principles
Section 22 FOIA allows withholding of information intended for future publication if it's reasonable to do so.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public interest test under FOIA is assessed at the date of the refusal of the request.
Montague v Information Commissioner [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC) (Montague) and [2023] EWCA Civ 1378
For section 22 FOIA to apply, a 'settled intention to publish' must exist before the request is made.
This case's interpretation of Section 22 FOIA
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The FTT found that the Home Office did not have a settled intention to publish the requested information before the request was made, failing to satisfy section 22(1)(b) of FOIA.
No further action was ordered against the Home Office.
The requested information had already been published; therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to order any steps.