Key Facts
- •Nigel Harris appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner that the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) was entitled to refuse his information request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as vexatious.
- •Harris's request sought information relating to two specific accident reports, questioning the methodology and conclusions.
- •The RAIB deemed the request vexatious due to the volume and nature of previous correspondence from Harris.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the RAIB's decision, finding the request lacked a serious purpose and imposed a disproportionate burden on the RAIB.
Legal Principles
A request is vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA if it is a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC); Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Determining vexatiousness requires a holistic approach considering factors such as the burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, the request's value or serious purpose, and harassment or distress to staff.
Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454
Section 14 FOIA is not a blanket exemption; it only applies to the specific request in question.
This case
The right to information under FOIA is qualified and must be balanced against other public interests, including efficient public administration.
This case
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Harris's request was vexatious, applying a holistic approach and considering the previous course of dealings, the disproportionate burden on RAIB, the lack of serious purpose, and the potential for harassment or distress to staff. The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's reasoning and found no errors in law or the exercise of discretion.